User:ILoveCarl/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Practice Editing Here (Nov 23rd in-class Wiki session work)

 * This is a place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button).

Assignment # 3

 * 1.    Outline your specific planned changes to your section of the article, labelled “Proposed Changes”. Target 1-2 sentences for your improvements. Use the exact language you plan to post to the Wikipedia community and ensure that it is written in a way that is easily understood by non-medical people.


 * Proposed changes
 * Under "signs and symptoms", add sentence : “However, high body temperature does not necessarily indicate that heat stroke is present, such as with people in high-performance endurance sports or with people experiencing fevers.”
 * Under "signs and symptoms", add sentence : “When diagnosing exertional heat stroke, it may be best to avoid relying on a specific temperature threshold, and instead focus on other symptoms.”
 * 2.    After each proposed change, briefly explain the rationale for the change and the reference(s) you have used to support your content. Label this section “Rationale for proposed change.”
 * Rationale for proposed changes
 * Rationale for sentence 1: This information came from a 2019 review article titled “Controversies in exertional heat stroke diagnosis, prevention, and treatment”. This change is important because I anticipate that readers of this article may attempt to identify heat stroke in themselves, or in people they know. In that case, clarifying this fact may help to ease anxiety in those with elevated body temperatures, which aren’t necessarily associated with any pathologies. Without this addition, readers may interpret the current description to mean that their elevated body temperatures indicate a heat stroke (which may or may not be the case).
 * Rationale for sentence 2: This information also came from the 2019 review article mentioned above. This addition is important because it emphasizes the importance of using other symptoms for diagnosing exertional heat stroke rather than a temperature threshold, which current evidence does not seem to support. Aside from knowing this fact itself, one way that I expect this to be useful is in reminding the readers about the complexity of diagnosing illnesses, as well as the importance of seeking clinical judgement from trained medical professionals. I do not believe that the article in its current form achieves this purpose.
 * 3.     Identify any controversy or varied opinions about planned changes in your section and explain how you decided to move forward with the position you have taken. Add this piece to the rationale section.
 * The information I added is likely to be met with controversy, as it is an idea which seems to have been discussed only recently in the secondary scientific literature. While new evidence may potentially change our understanding of this information, current evidence from high quality and consistent research sources support the information being provided.
 * 3.     Identify any controversy or varied opinions about planned changes in your section and explain how you decided to move forward with the position you have taken. Add this piece to the rationale section.
 * The information I added is likely to be met with controversy, as it is an idea which seems to have been discussed only recently in the secondary scientific literature. While new evidence may potentially change our understanding of this information, current evidence from high quality and consistent research sources support the information being provided.


 * 4.     Please identify any issues or concerns with the source (including any possibility of bias) and how (or whether) this has impacted your plans for the information you are choosing to share. Label this section “Critique of Source.”
 * Critique of Source
 * Although the source I have chosen provides logical justification using high-quality evidence, it is limited by nature of it being a narrative review rather than a systematic review. As a result, certain weaknesses are present, including: a lack of a predefined search method, a lack of predefined search criteria for studies cited, a lack of data synthesis etc. One potential bias that this source may be vulnerable to is selection bias, for example, since the authors chose the studies to cite without pre-defining objective criteria. This impacts my plans for sharing information from the article by requiring me to carefully choose my language when doing so. For example, instead of presenting the assertions of the authors as fact, I will use phrases such as “it MAY be best to avoid relying on a specific temperature threshold” rather than “one should definitely avoid relying on a specific temperature threshold”.

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page?

 * This will also be covered on Nov 23rd 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 2020/Talk Page Template