User:LDavis5/Neonatal withdrawal/J.Chin, Future UCSF Pharm.D. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Neonatal withdrawal by H. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D., K. Huang, Future UCSF Pharm.D., K.Alcera, LDavis5


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Neonatal withdrawal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Neonatal withdrawal

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as outlined in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework"?

Yes I think Group 16's edits substantially improved the article. The contents of the article are explained clearly and thoroughly, particularly the causes, diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment sections, which were revised with more details from quality peer-reviewed journal sources. I like how the treatment section is structured to have two sections: one dedicated to non-pharmacological treatments and the other dedicated to pharmacological treatments; It is clear by reading the article that first line treatment of NAS is non-pharmacological treatment so good job! however, I think rewording the subtitles from "non-medication" to "non-medication treatment" and from "medication" to "medication treatment" will make it even clearer. Also, this a is a minor suggestion but I think inserting wiki-links to medical terminology like "meconium", "prenatal", "postnatal", "heroin", "buprenorphine", "neurotransmitters", etc would be helpful for readers to more easily understand the article.

Has the group achieved its overall goal for improvement?
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 5) * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * 6) * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * 7) * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 8) ** Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * 9) ** Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * 10) ** Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * 11) ** Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * 12) *** Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * 13) *** Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * 14) *** Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Has the group achieved its overall goal for improvement?

Yes, I think Group 16 has achieved its overall goal for improvement. The lead has been updated with the epidemiology of NAS which is great in letting readers how much NAS is affecting the population. I think the lead should include brief sentences explaining the signs and symptoms of NAS, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment which are talked about in the rest of the article. However, overall, Group 16 has done a great job in adding relevant content from reliable secondary sources to the topics discussed. The tone of the article is also neutral without being too heavy on one point of view. One sentence in the article that I think was a little tone-heavy was in the prevention section: "Women can discuss all medicines and alcohol and tobacco use with their health-care provider and get assistance to help stop drug use as soon as possible. Indications that a pregnant woman needs help are if she is using drugs non-medically, ...". Maybe rewording these two sentences to "...and get assistance to abstain from drug use..." and "medical attention is recommended if a pregnant individual is...".

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes. Most of the points included in the article are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available; majority of the sources are either review articles, meta analysis, and practice guidelines from the Cochrane Library and peer-reviewed journals such as Pediatrics, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA Pediatrics, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. Most of the secondary sources are also up-to-date and within the last 10 years. There are only a few primary sources like RCTs being used as a source in the article

- in the "prevention" section: Heil SH, Jones HE, Arria A, et al. Unintended pregnancy in opioid-abusing women. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011;40(2):199-202. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.08.011

- in the "causes" section: Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(24):2320-2331. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1005359

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?