User:Sweetpete8/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!
This is place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button). Please see Help:My_sandbox or contact User_talk:JenOttawa with any questions.

Link: Project Homepage and Resources


 * Note: Please use your sandbox to submit assignment # 3 by pasting it below. When uploading your improvements to the article talk page please share your exact proposed edit (not the full assignment 3).


 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2019/Talk Page Template

Assignment #2
1) How you searched for a source (search strategy – where you went to find it).

I used PubMed to search for “merkel cell carcinoma” and then used an article type setting of “Reviews” to specifically search for only review article. The search strategy resulted in the following:

2) What potential sources were identified and considered (give examples of 1 or 2). The following sources were identified and considered:

Kervarrec T, Samimi M, Guyétant S, et al. Histogenesis of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review. Front Oncol. 2019;9:451. Published 2019 Jun 10. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00451

Tetzlaff, M.T., Harms, P.W. Danger is only skin deep: aggressive epidermal carcinomas. An overview of the diagnosis, demographics, molecular-genetics, staging, prognostic biomarkers, and therapeutic advances in Merkel cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol (2019) doi:10.1038/s41379-019-0394-6 3) Why the source was chosen (what made it better than other choices).

The first source was chosen over the second source since it includes a discussion of the possible pathophysiology that underlies the generation of Merkel-Cell Carcinoma. The second source does not include an idea of the pathophysiology which is the aspect of the Wikipedia article that I am critiquing.

4) List at least three reasons why the source that was selected meets Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources (MEDRS) criteria.

Since the source is a review article it is considered a secondary source. This demonstrates a greater quality of evidence since it is synthesized based on multiple primary sources. As well, this source is produced relatively recently (2019) which suggests that it uses up-to-date information. As well, this source is objective since there are no notices of conflict of interest statements listed within the article.

5) How do you plan to use the source for improving the article?

I plan on using this article to create a statement demonstrating the pathophysiological causes of Merkel-Cell Carcinoma. We are planning on clarifying the introduction paragraph as well since it incorrectly outlines the causes of the disease.

Assignment #3
1)	Outline your specific planned changes to your section of the article, labeled “Proposed Changes”. Target 1-2 sentences for your improvements. Use the exact language you plan to post to the Wikipedia community and ensure that it is written in a way that is easily understood by non-medical people.

I will be editing the pathophysiology section while Meriah will edit the introduction section.

Pathophysiology
As well the following sentence in the pathophysiology section is to be edited:

"MCV, a polyomavirus, is the first polyomavirus strongly suspected to cause tumors in humans."

To be replaced with:

"MCV, a polyomavirus, is often present in MCC but no clear evidence suggests that the relationship is causal."

2)	After each proposed change, briefly explain the rationale for the change and the reference(s) you have used to support your content. Label this section “Rationale for the proposed change.”

The secondary source review article as well as our tutor has made clear that the true underlying pathophysiological cause of MCC is currently unknown and the MCV is only know to often be present alongside the cancer. There is no clear, causal evidence suggesting that MCV is required for the development of MCC.

Kervarrec T, Samimi M, Guyétant S, et al. Histogenesis of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review. Front Oncol. 2019;9:451. Published 2019 Jun 10. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00451

3)	Identify any controversy or varied opinion about planned changes in your section, and explain how you decided to move forward with the position you have taken. Add this piece to the rationale section.

Although there are some references that cite that MCC is caused by MCV, this evidence is often correlational and does not show the disease progression in humans. Due to this, we have decided to support the claim that the current direct cause of MCC is unknown and that the factors may only be contributory rather than causal in nature.

4)	Please identify any issues or concerns with the source (including any possibility of bias) and how (or whether) this has impacted on your plans for the information you are choosing to share. Label this section “Critique of Source.”

The source does not cite any conflicts of interest regarding authorship of the article. As well, since the article is a review of available literature, it acts to serve as a comprehensive summary of the cited literature rather than supporting a single view-point on the issue. Due to this, publication bias could be a possible source of bias due to the selective publishing of positive results. Importantly, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to account for this as the results opposing said conclusions may not have citable evidence to oppose it.

Hi Peter,

Can you add the reference into your proposed changes? I only see one reference, I think most people have two references or more.

Also you and Meriah should coordinate on your proposed changes. She picked the same sentences that you are changing.

Meriah has decided to edit the introduction section while I will do the pathophysiology changes. Since there is a single change and it is referenced in the article aformentioned, I will remain with one source. If you have any concerns with this please let me know!