User:Milanamilivoj/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Radiculopathy

Assignment # 3
Consistent, long term exposure (5+ years) to certain work related behaviours can put people at high risk of developing radiculopathy. These behaviours include bending over, physically demanding work, and lifting and carrying. 2. 	Rationale for proposed change (3 marks): Each of the new sentences (1-2) proposed for the article has been justified by the student. This justification includes why the change is necessary, where the information came from, and why the content they are adding or replacing is inadequate in its current form. I chose to add this change to the article because when covering causes and mechanisms of radiculopathy, because for patients and clinicians alike it is important to consider how the work environment contributes to improve understanding of the disease itself and how to prevent it. Work-related behaviours was one of the main causes of radiculopathy that had appeared consistently throughout my research but was not discussed in the Wiki article, despite how common it is for the presentation of many patients with radiculopathy. This information came from a systematic review and dose-response meta analysis that was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Neurology from American Academy of Neurology). The content of this article is inadequate because it simply does not address this very common cause. The reference for this information is as follows:  Kuijer, P., Verbeek, J. H., Seidler, A., Ellegast, R., Hulshof, C., Frings-Dresen, M., & Van der Molen, H. F. (2018). Work-relatedness of lumbosacral radiculopathy syndrome: Review and dose-response meta-analysis. Neurology, 91(12), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000544322.26939.09 3. 	Area of controversy (if applicable) (1 mark): The student has shown areas of ambiguity or controversy for the proposed change and the position taken has been clearly justified. (note if there is no possible controversy or ambiguity, skip this section and add 1 mark to question 2 for a total grade of 10) I think an area of controversy that has to be considered is how the term exposure is classified, as it shouldn’t be interpreted that engaging in these work behaviours in a moderate amount for a short period of time increases patient risk of developing radiculopathy. For this reason, I added in the length of time that was considered in the meta-analysis (namely, five or more years) and the term “consistent” to emphasize that the behaviour must be repeated often. Otherwise, I don’t think that there would be any other cases of ambiguity as the proposed change is accurate and comes from a reliable source as seen in the answer for question 4. 4. 	Critique of source (2 marks): The student has identified any validity issues or potential bias within the secondary source they have chosen to support their proposed change. The student’s written content demonstrates an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence they have identified. The student can speculate on the potential bias of their source and whether (and how) that might have affected their extracted information. One bias of the source may include language bias, as the study inclusion criteria included only articles published in German and English. There also may have been publication bias as the systematic review and meta analysis did not include studies that hadn’t been published yet. However, this source was published in a peer reviewed journal, is relevant to the topic at hand, and is current (was published two years ago). Additionally, this secondary source used two independent reviewers for study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment as well as an in depth and detailed search strategy. For these reasons, this source can be considered to have met the MED-RS criteria. 5. 	Article improvement (2 marks): The student has shared their proposed improvement on their article talk page. This entry is formatted according to the supplied template and the student has included the reference and exact improvement that they propose to make on Wikipedia.
 * Note: You will be emailing your assignment # 3 directly to your tutor, however, please paste a version here that excludes your personal information. This will allow us to support your efforts on Wikipedia prior to editing "live" in the article.
 * 1. 	Proposed Changes (2 marks): The planned 1-2 sentences are clear, written in simple language, free of jargon, and understandable to a 12-year-old (grade 8). Technical and medical terms are wiki-linked if they have not yet appeared in the article. “People-first” language is used and the word “patient” is avoided (i.e., “People with diabetes” rather than “diabetics”).
 * It is posted to the talk page.

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page?

 * This will also be covered on Nov 23rd in class. Your group should use the below template to share an outline of your proposed improvements (including your new wording and citations). Article talk pages are not places to share your assignment answers. The Wikipedia community will be more interested in viewing your exact article improvement suggestions including where you plan to improve the article (which section), what wording you suggest, and the exact citation (Note: all citations must meet WP:MEDRS)
 * You will not be able to paste citations directly from your sandbox to talk pages (unless you are interested in editing/learning Wiki-code in the "source editing" mode). We suggest re-adding your citations on the talk page manually (using the cite button and populating the citation by pasting in the DOI, website, or PMID). You will have to repeat this process yet again when you edit the actual article live.
 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2020/Talk Page Template