User:Mdkheinelt/sandbox

Draft for Talk Page

Hello, we are a group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:
 * 1) We propose to insert the following content into the Neural Tube Defect "Diagnosis" section: In Canada, clinical practice guidelines recommend secondary trimester ultrasound as the primary screening tool for NTDs and MSAFP as a secondary screening tool. This is due to increased safety, increased sensitivity and decreased false positive rate of ultrasound as compared to MSAFP.
 * 2) We noticed that Reference #24 is a primary source. We propose replacing it with the source:  "Meta-analysis of the association of maternal smoking and passive smoking during pregnancy with neural tube defects"
 * 3) We propose altering the first sentence of the article, as it is missing the key fact that Neural Tube Defects are birth defects. We would change it to read: "Neural Tube Defects (NTDs) are a group of severe birth defects in which there is incomplete closure of the neural tube in embryonic development."
 * 4) Reference #10 only somewhat supports the first sentence claim since the study primarily focuses on B12 and just mentions folate as it is referenced by other studies. We propose adding the following systematic review, which focuses on Folate:  "Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects"
 * 5) We noticed that the first sentence of Causes is a little bit confusing because it includes both B12 and folate, whereas the section only talks about Folic Acid Deficiency. We propose changing it from "Folate (vitamin B9) and vitamin B12 are very important in reducing the occurrences of NTDs.” to “Folate (vitamin B9) is very important in reducing the occurrence of NTDs. Vitamin B12, which is involved in the same biopathway, also plays a role although B12 deficiency is less common.”
 * 6) We propose adding the following systematic review  "Maternal obesity and the risk of neural tube defects in offspring: A meta-analysis"  as a citation to the first sentence in the gene-environment section in “Causes”. It is a systematic review analyzing the relationship between maternal obesity and NTDs.
 * 7) There is a sentence in the middle of the folate deficiency paragraph that mentions a “gene-environment interaction” and we propose that this should be moved to the next section where this sentence could be the topic sentence for the “gene-environment interaction” paragraph. Furthermore, this section mainly focuses on cigarette smoke as an environmental factor but based on evidence from this review  "Pre-conception Folic Acid and Multivitamin Supplementation for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Neural Tube Defects and Other Folic Acid-Sensitive Congenital Anomalies"  we propose that the following environmental factors should also be added: GI abnormalities, alcohol, or other drug use.
 * 8) In the epidemiology section, we propose adding “Surveillance capacity for neural tube defects vary widely across countries. There is especially lack of data on prevalence and incidence from low income countries." These sentences provide context for epidemiological data regarding neural tube defects with evidence from "Describing the Prevalence of Neural Tube Defects Worldwide: A Systematic Literature Review."

Mdkheinelt (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My citation:

Article Evaluation

Group 7 - Claire Moura, Meredith Poole, Noah Liberman, Martina Heinelt, Portia Tang, and Bryan Franco

Wikipedia Article - Neural Tube Defect

Overall, the content of the Neural Tube Defect article is relevant to the topic. While some information needs to be re-sorted, the majority of it is under the appropriate heading. Our main concerns regarding this article are the lack of proper citations and incomplete sections of information. The headings for the necessary sections are present, however have insufficient information, poor grammar, and a lack of organization.

The article is fairly neutral. There are no claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position, or directed with a certain point of view. The content is not divided evenly between the many sub-headings; there is more information for certain types of open NTDs (e.g. anencephaly, encephaloceles, iniencephaly and spina bifida) versus closed NTDs, and more information about surgical treatment than other types of treatment. Within open NTDs there is less information on hydranencephaly compared to other open NTDs.

In the subheading “causes”, the article is framed to focus on metabolic and environmental risk factors associated with NTD, however, there is little to no material on other risk factors associated with NTD, such as: poorly controlled diabetes, certain anti-seizure medications, obesity, or family history of NTDs. In “diagnosis”, there is underrepresentation of other values that are important in maternal screening e.g. hCG and estriol. Lastly, in “treatment”, treatment options specific for each type of open NTD are underrepresented. For example, treatment for spina bifida varies depending on the severity of the condition - patients may need alternative methods of transport (e.g. walkers, wheelchairs, braces) or may receive surgical treatment (e.g. tethered spinal cord).

While all of the links in the article worked and were unbroken, many did not support the claims they were attached to. Moreover, they would be infringing copyright as they directly quoted the source, rather than paraphrasing as exemplified in the introductory section citations 1, 2, and 5. Several of the citations in the “Types” subheading are for print sources that are unavailable online (sources 7 and 8).

Numerous facts were not cited with correct citations, or were secondary sources that were citing another source for the information. While the sources are seemingly neutral (CDC, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) they are not appropriate sources for a wikipedia article. This article could be greatly improved with a thorough evaluation and addition of citations.

The majority of the citations are over 5 years old, and a significant portion of those over 10 years old. The entire article could be improved with the addition of information in every subheading except for the introduction. For example, in both the treatment and prevention subheadings only one example was offered for each, and were only supported by articles over 10 years old. Moreover, there is only one sentence in the epidemiology subheading providing a statistic from 2010 and it is additionally paired with a map from 2012.

There is a lack of discussion about the general direction for the Neural Tube Defect page. However, there were suggestions for targeted improvements. For example, an editor proposed that “Neural Tube Defects” should be redirected to “Neural Tube Defect.” All of discussions in the Talk Page were dated (at least 5 years old) with some concerns already addressed.

For our contribution, we will use recent, trustworthy, and appropriate sources to guide the organization of the Neural Tube Defect article, including the addition of any headings and subheadings necessary. This will also provide support for some of the unsupported facts using more firm evidence. This organization will be more logical than the current state of the article. Specifically, we will expand and clarify the diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology sections. We plan to expand the “Type” section to include a more balanced representation of open NTDs and closed NTDs. Lastly, we will correct grammatical errors, improve the general flow of the article and provide a more comprehensive and thorough description of NTDs.