User:Nurbach/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Practice Editing Here (Nov 23rd in-class Wiki session work)

 * This is a place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button).

Name of Wiki Article: Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

Assignment # 3

 * 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.

Proposed changes: At the end of the Surgery subsection of the Treatment section, I will add the following sentences: “The anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedure is more commonly performed than the posterior cervical foraminotomy procedure. However, both procedures are equally effective in treating cervical radiculopathy and have no significant differences in their complication rates.”

Rationale for proposed change: The wikipedia page lists a few surgical interventions that can be used in treating radiculopathy but does not indicate which is most commonly used or which is most effective. This information is therefore not very helpful in advising people on the potential treatments for cervical radiculopathy. This alteration to the page will give viewers more information on surgical interventions for cervical radiculopathy. Systematic reviews of these procedures did not reveal any controversy or varied opinions regarding ACDF and PCF. This information came from a systematic review that analyzed several papers that compared these two surgical approaches.

Reference: Liu, W. J., Hu, L., Chou, P. H., Wang, J. W., & Kan, W. S. (2016). Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review. Orthopaedic surgery, 8(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12285

Critique of source: While this article does meet the MEDRS criteria, there are a few issues with the studies included in the review that would decrease the legitimacy of the results. These reasons are summarized in the last paragraph of the discussion section. They include a bias due to only using English articles, small sample sizes in a few of the RCTs included, and heterogeneity between the studies in terms of study design. While this does question the legitimacy of the results, I believe these results can still be used due to the amount of studies included and the extensive quality analysis used when including studies in the project.

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