User:Mdimola/Pediatric Apheresis/Chacha2019 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Mdimola)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Comments for Mdimola:


 * The article seemed to use credible medical sources. Every paragraph in the article ends with 2-3 citations, makes it more reliable and trustworthy since the topic is a medical treatment.
 * Any information about the history of Pediatric Aphresis and who invented it? Perhaps how it started? This can possibly included on the article body.
 * I am a bit distracted by psychosocial considerations, is this supposed to be under adverse events?
 * The article is neutral and simply provides information about this treatment.
 * Red cells/Reconstituted whole blood /5% Albumin seems underrepresented. It seems like a separate work. More information might be needed to be a part of Extracorporeal volume section.
 * All the citations and hyperlinks work. There is a lot of hyperlinks but it is helpful for a reader who does not have a medical background. However, I find hyperlinks a bit excessive for some parts (i.e red cell, potassium and carbon dioxide)
 * The sources supports the claim of the article. Your references is repeated twice, maybe you can delete the first one.
 * The media displayed on this article is recent and quite useful. It's perfect for the page. It helps the reader understands the apheresis technology.
 * I am just wondering, there is a page Apheresis already. I feel like this page will be a hit if it is a part of the Aphresis page instead of a completely separate page.
 * The article is well written, concise and easy to ready even if you are do not have a medical degree.
 * There are more than 10 reliable resources and it accurately represent most of the available literature about Aphresis.
 * Areas to consider: Adverse events section. Use full sentences to explain adverse events and for pediatric considerations.

Peer review response
Thank you for your peer review. I have taken your suggestion into consideration in the final edit of my article. I especially appreciated your comment regarding psychosocial considerations and have moved it to a more appropriate part of the article. You mentioned that I have repeated references, I have reviewed the article and can not seem to find the redundancy, could you please provide an example? Additionally, I love that you can find merit in the article even without a medical background. I will still keep this as a stand alone article but will put a link to the main page of Apheresis so that anyone looking for more information related to its application to pediatrics can find it. Full sentences have been added to adverse events. Thanks again for this very concise peer review. Mdimola (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)