User:Mattm824/Neurogenic bladder dysfunction/Abluejay19 Peer Review

General info
Mattm824
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mattm824/Neurogenic bladder dysfunction
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Neurogenic bladder dysfunction

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.)

'''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?'''

I really like the structure of the article. When I think of a neurogenic bladder, all the key subsections that need to be there are there. I think the most confusing part of neurogenic bladder is the classification system and Matthew does a great job in going over the subtopics: the uninhibited, spastic, flaccid, and mixed. This section is not overly complicated or lengthly and is appropriate for both an educated patient audience and a medial student level of understanding that is not in the subspecialty.

The diagnostics and treatments sections are excellent!

'''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

I think the major changes need to be adding a section about the etiology of the various types of neurogenic bladder, i.e. spinal cord injury vs peripheral neuropathy etc. I feel like knowing the inciting event can help people who are reading this article better contextualize what type of injury or disease can cause what type of neurogenic bladder. You could add this as a new section entirely titled "ETIOLOGY" or you could add it to the "Classification" section under each of the subtypes. While the causes section is listed below symptoms (this could be brought above - the actual neuron or path in the nervous system injured can be brought above).

Another major change I would make is the adding the incidence of the disease in the beginning or lead of the article.

Also, adding the timeframe and recovery rates could be helpful.

Lastly, I feel like the symptoms section may be a little too short. Consider expanding on this section.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think the most important thing that could be improved in this article is the "Signs and symptoms" section of the article. While some of this information is nested in other parts of the article, it would make it really clear if we added a section that was just dedicated to this. You could also use the same "classification" as above when you are talking about the signs and symptoms.

'''4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

I am particularly impressed by the burden section. I think it is really smart to add the economic impact of the disease in the article. This is something I will try to do too.