User talk:Lihuashu1/Drug-eluting stent/Kalij94 Peer Review

Peer Review
I'm posting here because I think posted the peer review in the wrong section.

 General Organization of Feedback 

'''I will make some recommendations based upon your sandbox and some based on the article as is. I'll clearly mark which recommendations apply to which source. Some of the feedback for the article as is will refer to sections that are not currently in your sandbox. I've tried to present the feedback in the order of your draft article.'''

 General Points Based on your Wiki Workplan 


 * I agree with the organizational idea of moving “Risks” up in the article and moving “Alternative to stents” lower in the article.
 * I agree with the goal of using more neutral language in the article.

 General Points Based on your Draft 


 * Several critiques I had of the current wiki page were addressed in your draft (contraindications, examples of newer generation DES, long term outcomes)
 * Excellent citations
 * I think you've improved the overall organization of the article in your draft.

 Sandbox Feedback 

''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''


 * See notes on "Off-label use" under "is any of the information out of date?"

''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''

'''As a stylistic point, reducing the number of adverbs (and sometimes adjectives) can improve how "objective" the article feels and cut down on filler. You know more about the debates and evidence addressed in these sections. If you think it's an accurate representation, then leave it as is. If it doesn't contribute to the sentence, consider removing it.'''


 * ·     The second-to-last sentence of the second “Risks” paragraph makes several claims (highly controversial, largely unpredictable) that are unnecessarily descriptive. The adverbs also make the section read more “active” than “objective”.


 * ·     first sentence of “Stent thrombosis”. “Evidence has shown” reads more objective than “Evidence has always shown..”. Presumably there’s one poorly conducted study that doesn’t show that new clot formation is problematic.


 * ·    “History”- “Both sirolimus and paclitaxel are natural products, making the drug-eluting stents a specific kind of application totally dominated by…”


 * “Whether or not drug-eluting stents are at higher risk than bare-metal stents for late thrombosis is intensely debated”
 * "A recent histopathology study showed very late DES thrombosis is"

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * I think your draft does a good job of presenting information about the benefits, risks, and possible overuse of stents.

'Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'


 * High-quality citations (NEJM, AHA, JACC, Circulation). I randomly opened 5 links. All of them worked and referred back to the sentence preceding the citations.

'Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'


 * “Off-label Use” second paragraph, first sentence. Who is expressing concern about stent use? This might just involve citing the same articles cited for the following sentence.
 * Third sentence, second paragraph of “Off-label Use”-“More recent data…” needs a source.
 * Citation for the first sentence in the "Adverse Effects" section...“Risks associated with cardiac catheterization include…”


 * Citations in the "Stent thrombosis" section should be more extensive.
 * One good primary source explaining restenosis would be useful for this section. Consider looking at the restenosis page on Wikipedia.


 * A citation is needed after the “2019 metanalysis..” sentence in the “Benefits” section.

'Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'


 * The addition of the “Considerations for use” section has a good tone and provides useful information. Similar information for saphenous vein grafts would be helpful (1-2 sentences).
 * The "Off-label use" section on DES may be out of date. The source in the wiki article is from 2008. Since then, it looks like DES are approved for saphenous vein grafts. Would confirm, since this would change your organization.
 * The "Contraindications" section is a valuable addition. I would consider moving this above “off-label use”.
 * An image of different degrees of stenosis, or coronary stenosis histology (ideally with a stent), or saphenous vein graft DES would be a nice addition for people not familiar with these concepts.

 Current Article Feedback 

The lead is a good summation of the most important aspects of the article.

'Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'


 * The first sentence of the second paragraph could be split into two sentences to improve readability. (sources cited are 3,4,5)

'Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'


 * In the current "Off-label use" section, bare metal stents. In this section, the claim is supported by multiple high-quality journal publications. These studies are prospective cohort studies with roughly 1,000 participants. The evidence would be slightly stronger if a meta-analysis or systematic review were used.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * I think the “History” section provides a good chronological framework for understanding how stenting has changed over time. I would consider moving this up as well.

'Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'


 * In the "Medical Uses" section, there's no citation on the first or second sentence, both of which make important claims.
 * Link 8 might be a dead link. The archived FDA page is empty.

'Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'


 * The “Alternative to Stents” section makes several claims without citing evidence.
 * Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the “Alternative to Stents” section is a good example of appropriate citations. Links 16 and 17 work.
 * Second paragraph- In this section, the claim is supported by multiple high-quality journal publications. These studies are prospective cohort studies with roughly 1,000 participants. The evidence would be slightly stronger if a meta-analysis or systematic review were used.

'Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'


 * In the last paragraph of the “Design” section, it should be stated that the FDA is the governing body that has designated vascular stents as Class III medical devices.


 * In the “History” section, I would add that the first resorbable DES was approved by the FDA in 2016.


 * In the “Society and culture” section, there is a new NYT article from 2019 discussing the possible overuse of stenting in the U.S.

Kalij94 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)