User talk:LeonardoMVP

Welcome!
Hello, LeonardoMVP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! 13:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Edits at Hyperemesis gravidarum
Hi, I see you've added information at Hyperemesis gravidarum regarding very preliminary small study results. The sources you've provided -- the primary study itself and the press release -- are not sufficient sources to support this article content. Please see WP:MEDRS. We are looking for independent reliable secondary sources, like review articles. Thanks... 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I found this review and guide for medical practioners - http://www.researchgate.net/publication/230612582_Second-generation_antiepileptic_drugs_and_pregnancy_a_guide_for_clinicians

Is this a sufficient secondary source?

as well as this case study on the subject that reviews the general literature on the subject - A case of treatment refractory hyperemesis gravidarum in a patient with comorbid anxiety, treated successfully with adjunctive Gabapentin: a review and the potential role of neurogastroentereology in understanding its pathogenesis and treatment LeonardoMVP (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The first source you found is PMID 22650173 and it looks decent, full text is here, but on a quick glance it does not mention "hyperemesis gravidarum"... are you looking to use it for that article or some other article? The second one is PMID 23346516, full text here, doesn't advertise itself as a "Review" article but that first bit of it does look useful. Journal articles that have quick reviews in them like that aren't ideal because they often don't give a complete summary of topic, they just give enough to cover the rest of the topic of the article, but it's not terrible.  If I saw that put into the article I'd think it's OK.  Thanks for asking and welcome!    14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see - the first source is a more general review of the anit epileptics without touching on the subject of HG. It might be relevent in another article such as epilepsy or in the gabapentin article.

So I can use the second article as a secondary source to support the edit? Thanks for the assistLeonardoMVP (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not about gabapentin. I was talking only about that article's general background discussion of HG under its INTRODUCTION section to source general statements about HG.  The rest of it is an individual case report.  Please see WP:MEDASSESS, individual case reports are insufficient sourcing.    15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How can that second article be incorporated and under what section?

Ok - What about creating an external resources section linking to the Her foundation and other net resources for the desease? LeonardoMVP (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as mentioned, that second source has a short INTRODUCTION section near the start, and that has general background info on HG. If there's info in that one setion that isn't in the HG article, you could use that section of that source for our HG article.  I haven't looked at the rest of that source carefully because, as mentioned, case reports are specifically listed in WP:MEDASSESS as a kind of source we do not use. What is the "Her foundation"?  We generally do not link to charities from our medical articles, please see WP:EL for a description of the kinds of things that are and are not appropriate  for external links.  Thanks...    17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)