User:Kalij94/Opioid use disorder/Alexloopy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Kalij94) - Kaleel


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kalij94/Opioid use disorder/Alexloopy Peer Review


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Opioid use disorder

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall feedback before going through the template:

-Lead section can be updated as described in template below to reflect changes you made and remove the 2nd paragraph of Lead that was pretty irrelevant

-I like putting the DMS-V criteria first

-I like the clarifications to signs/symptoms

-I like the organization of intoxication -> overdose -> withdrawal

-For withdrawal, in the second sentence "Onset of withdrawal depends..." I might clarify that these differences are based on half life. I.e. [Onset of withdrawal depends on the half life of the opioid last used. Withdrawal after heroin use, which has a short half life (link to half life) of ... typically occurs within 5 hours. Methadone, with a long half life of... may result in withdrawal symptoms that start at 2 days and last for 2? weeks.]

-Cause section - are Rx opioids still the source of nearly half of misused opioids?

-Mechanism section: the p value is probably not necessary in the addiction paragraph.

-Prevention section: "Large U.S. retail pharmacy chains are implementing protocols, guidelines, and initiatives to take back unused opioids, providing naloxone kits, and being vigilant for suspicious prescriptions." providing is the wrong tense in the above sentence. Could link to naloxone page here too.

-Mitigation section: I might give an example of "abuse deterrent" medications

-Management section: medication subsection - "an opioid, such a heroin" - heroin is opiate not opioid ; "as of 2018, buprenorphine/naloxone is preferentially recommended" - recommended by who? ; space needed between refs 82/83 and naltrexone later on ; same with refs before buprenorphine in next sentence ; "The starting of methadone" improper tense

-Management section: methadone sub-subsection - "other advantages of methadone include reduction in infectious disease related to injection drug use and reduced mortality" needs citation ; "When patients taking MAT improve and want to refrain from taking methadone, they must be properly weaned off the medication, which must be done under medical observation." this may be hard for a lay person to understand and needs a citation. I might remove "when patients taking MAT improve because it has connotation that MAT is bad. Properly weaned off is kind of difficult to understand, you could explain more about how methadone's long half life will cause a prolonged withdrawal like mentioned above. ; "methadone, as an opiate, has the potential to be addictive" - I would actually highlight its full-agonist nature rather than being an opiate.

-Management section: buprenorphine sub-subsection - I might explain the ceiling effect a little more.

-Management section: buprenorphine sub-subsection - link to wiki page on bioavailability

-Management section: buprenorphine sub-subsection - I would explain precipitated withdrawal with another sentence

-Epi section: The graphs at the bottom are a little disorganized like in my article but overall they are ok

Overall, great additions, small edits as above!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not yet. The current lead is not great by my read so I think you could improve it a lot with a few edits, as described below.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes but it is a little basic and choppy. It could probably start with defining OUD with a paraphrase from the DSM-5 definition rather than OUD is SUD with opioids, as it says now.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does touch on tolerance, withdrawal, dependence, and overdose but I prefer how you organized those sequentially so I would re-write that. There is no mention of prevention/mitigation/management
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The entire second paragraph of the lead is about a study on dependence which really doesn't belong in the lead, or potentially at all in the article as it is somewhat ramble and discusses a lot of non-opioid drugs.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * As above - I think it could be expanded to organize as you have, and remove the second paragraph entirely.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I like the additions that are focused on mitigation and methadone/buprenorphine
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes new citations in the mitigation section and buprenorphine/methadone sections
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * A few sources need added as described above
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. Some sources repeat for me when they were copied from the sandbox into the live article. The same thing happened on my page. One example is the citation for Sordo et al. which is both citation 7 and 91.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some noted above
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes major improvements in organization

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes I like the additions of Suboxone and methadone rates
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Better organization than prior, new important info about MAT and mitigation
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding a few sources and clarifying concepts that can be difficult to understand such as long half life causing prolonged withdrawal, precipitated withdrawal, ceiling effect, bioavailability.