User:Dannythekey/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Practice Editing Here (Nov 15th in-class Wiki session work)
Hello I am Danny.
 * This is a place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button).

Task:


 * 1) Find a peer-reviewed journal article on PubMed. Practice inserting your citation in the above space using the "cite" tool
 * 2) Choose one "B-level" medical article on Wikipedia from the following list: https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Medicine/articles?quality=B-Class&importance=High-Class
 * 3) Practice editing live on Wikipedia by finding a typo in the text or improving the clarity/readability of a sentence by adjusting a few words in a sentence.

Assignment # 3- please post an anonymous copy here!
Original:

Most patients with Mycosis Fungoides have early-stage disease (Stage IA-IIA) at the time of their initial diagnosis. These patients with early stage disease that is primarily confined to the skin have a favorable prognosis. Patients with advanced stage (Stage IIB-IVB) are often refractory to treatment and have an unfavorable prognosis. Treatment of patients with advanced stage disease is designed to reduce tumor burden, delay disease progression, and preserve quality of life.

Edits:

Most patients with Mycosis Fungoides have early-stage disease (Stage IA-IIA) at the time of their initial diagnosis. These patients with early stage disease that is primarily confined to the skin have a favorable prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 85.8% for Stage IB. Patients with advanced stage (Stage IIB-IVB) are often refractory to treatment and have an unfavorable prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 62.2% for Stage IIB and as low as 23.3% in Stage IVB, the further stage. Treatment of patients with advanced stage disease is designed to reduce tumor burden, delay disease progression, and preserve quality of life.

Reference:

Mourad A, Gniadecki R. Overall Survival in Mycosis Fungoides: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Invest Dermatol. 2020 Feb;140(2):495-497.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.07.712. Epub 2019 Aug 26. PMID: 31465745.

Rationale: The stages as described mean very little, and the major issue with the section was that describing the issue qualitatively, saying “having good and poor prognosis” does not provide enough information as everyone has different ideas of what is good and poor. Survival rates should be there to provide objective values, and this addition will serve patients well as it will better allow them to plan for their futures. The information came from a robust systematic review (see assignment 1 for explanation of the article). Group members were supportive of the change and there were no controversies.

Critique of Sources:

o    Overall, the paper was effective at removing bias. They employed the Quality in Prognosis Studies risk of bias assessment and checked biases in the papers analysed

o    They are thorough on the methodology to generate the models employed, such as how to analyze the Kaplan-Meyer curves.

o    One potential source of bias is that while the stages are labeled the same between the source I added and the stages in the article, the stages could manifest differently in different people. This could potentially reduce the generalizability of the information. However, this is an inevitable part of the scoring system and cannot be avoided.

o    Their sample size is also good, searching 2,137 articles, with 10 studies meeting the meta-analysis criteria. This is sufficient in number.

o    Finally, the article acknowledges their own limitations in a separate paragraph:

§  Lacking info beyond 5 years after diagnosis

§  Lack of control population as a comparison

§  Insufficient data on stages IVA and IVB.

·        To address these issues, the authors used the first stage (stage IA) as a comparison, and testing for heterogeneity, it was found to be a sufficient control.

o    Overall, authors were thorough, and  they addressed limitations and explained why their data is still robust. Thus it did not discourage me

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page (part of assignment 3)

 * This will also be covered on Nov 15th in class. Your group should use the below template to share an outline of your proposed improvements (including your new wording and citations). Article talk pages are not places to share your assignment answers. The Wikipedia community will be more interested in viewing your exact article improvement suggestions including where you plan to improve the article (which section), what wording you suggest, and the exact citation (Note: all citations must meet WP:MEDRS)
 * You will not be able to paste citations directly from your sandbox to talk pages (unless you are interested in editing/learning Wiki-code in the "source editing" mode). We suggest re-adding your citations on the talk page manually (using the cite button and populating the citation by pasting in the DOI, website, or PMID). You will have to repeat this process yet again when you edit the actual article live.
 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2021/Talk Page Template