Talk:Biliblanket

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cvo.UCSF, Vtran1337, Tvu2020, Vmelgarejocovarrubias.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This

This article does not include sufficient citations, and possibly contains original research. Article does not follow encyclopedic writing style. Additionally, it contains first person narrative and also contains personal suggestions. Possible rewrite may be required. Micrll (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brands

In addition to being tagged for 'condense', I'm not convinced a list of brands is encyclopedic so I moved this to talk RJFJR (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philips Bilirubin Blanket

Royal Philips Electronics demonstrated a bili blanket on 27 September 2011 at their Innovation Experience in Eindhoven, Netherlands. The blanket is based on LED with a specific wavelength that make the therapy more effective.^{[citation needed]} As opposed to the use of a light generator and optical fibers (see above) this technology makes the bilirubin blanket portable. The blanket is made from soft, flexible textile and illuminates the baby directly. While being treated, the baby can be held by its parent, which is more comforting than the treatment being performed in the hospital environment.^{[citation needed]}

Ohmeda BiliBlanket

The original line from the early 1990s. Its current incarnation is sturdy and easy to lug about. The baby is attached to the pad using a paper harness, or it is just placed loose under the clothing.^{[citation needed]}

Healthdyne Wallaby

Older Wallabies are pretty heavy and quite noisy. On the other hand, the Wallaby does have a long cable that gives mother or father and baby more freedom of movement. Newer models are comparable to the Ohmeda's newer versions and functionally very much the same. Healthdyne is owned by Respironics, better known for sleep apnea devices.^{[citation needed]}

Olympic Medical Bili-Lite Pad

The Olympic is a meaner-looking device that does pretty much the same job as the above two machines, though it doesn't have a variable light level. Nice light but a more primitive, simple design.^{[citation needed]}

Ibis Medical - IREX Blanket LED Phototherapy

IRex Blanket LED Phototherapy uses flexible LED with increased surface area that uses less power and has a longer life. IREX blanket phototherapy is keeping the AAP guidelines for phototherapy.^{[citation needed]}

Foundations II 2020 Group [3] proposed edits

To improve this page I would add a few more sections to provide more information in an organized way about biliblankets, such as a section titled: Hyperbilirubinemia, Mechanism, Proper use, side effects, Advantages, disadvantages, History. Tvu2020 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group [4] Review

Here is our peer reviews.

1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Overall, the group’s draft reflects a neutral point of view and does not show evidence of bias. Great job on adding such a variety of information! Some observations and suggestions I have:

-“Biliblankets have been preferred by nurses and parents due to the feasibility in accessing and handling the baby” → I would suggest mentioning biliblankets are preferred over what other methods of treatment. You could also talk a little more about those other treatment methods somewhere in the article and when these methods are used.

-“Normally, bilirubin is an orange yellow bile pigment that is produced as a byproduct of hemoglobin as red blood cells break down (hemolysis).” → I think if the sentence starts with “normally”, it could be nice to add another sentence explaining to the readers about what’s “not normal” - what other colors or characteristics can bilirubin have?

-“It is important to make sure that the light-source machine is placed on a flat, level, hard surface such as a table or nightstand.” → Why is it important?

-Using words such as “normally”, “usually”, “should be” may weaken the validity of the statements you are writing about, so I recommend making more firm statements based on the evidence/sources you are using. 8/3/2020 A. Choi, Future Pharmacist from UCSF (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

For reference 2, "Bili Blanket Phototherapy", the journal is able to be found but a DOI should be made available with the reference. Reference 4, BiliBlanket phototherapy system versus conventional phototherapy: a randomized controlled trial in preterm infants", is a clinical trial and is a primary source that we should not be using. I recommend finding a review that would contain the same information. Reference 18, Formula for jaundiced breast-fed infants". , is a comment from a contributor to the original article. For reference 18, this would not qualify as a secondary source. For reference 19, Breast-feeding, jaundice, and formula", the same issue as reference 18 arises. Reference 21, "Fiberoptic, conventional and combination phototherapy for treatment of nonhemolytic hyperbilirubinemia in neonates", is an original study and would be a primary source then. I would recommend finding a review that captures the information within the article. UAslam-Mir (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Overall, the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Good job with the clear headings, subheadings, and cohesive style of writing.

I noticed a few discrepancies according to the wikipedia guidelines:

In the second sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction section, someone wrote that the bilirubin releases waves of blue/white light. According to the wikipedia manual of style guidelines, it's recommended to not use slashes. For example, someone can write "blue or white light" or "blue and white light" instead. Another instance of using a slash is illustrated in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction section. "Cover/vest" can be changed to "cover or vest."

According to the wikipedia manual of style guidelines, avoid writing and/or. For example, In the neonatal jaundice section, "cerebral palsy and/or mental retardation" can be changed to "cerebral palsy or mental retardation or both."

The biliblanket is capitalized throughout the article. Since the term "biliblanket" has been used generically, perhaps change it from upper case to lower case.

In the efficacy section, someone wrote "formula + breast fed." According to the wikipedia manual of style guidelines, avoid using + symbol. Perhaps change it to "formula and breast fed." 8.3.20 Jx130 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?

There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Citations were correctly placed when referencing topics and paraphrasing facts/statements. 08032020Aecutuli (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group’s proposed edits discussed adding new sections and altering the organization of the article to make more sense. So far the group has done that by adding in specific sections that they included in their proposed edits, such as mechanism, side effects, advantages, and disadvantages. They have significantly added to the article and have greatly improved the content to create a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are still necessary edits and additions that should be made to strengthen the article, as detailed in the peer review statements, but the group has achieved great strides towards meeting their proposed edits. Aecutuli (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The group’s edits substantially improve the article as their edits incorporate a lot more relevant and useful information relating to biliblanket. The article starts off with a concise and understandable introduction and incorporates other detailed information from many resources throughout the article. Their arrangement of topics is easy to follow as well. 8/3/2020 A. Choi, Future Pharmacist from UCSF (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The group improved the article overall. They contributed to many sections and added great information about the topic. I like that the introduction was clear and precise, giving a good summary about what the other sections of the article will be about. The article as a whole is very comprehensive about the topic. 8.3.2020. Jx130 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a variety of sources included relevant information in relation to efficacy may indirectly try to advise vs inform when using primary sources (clinical studies) as a reference. Additionally using journal comments also are not the best vetted sources, and information from journal comments should be replaced with information from reviews to add a layer of objectivity to information. I believe the group has achieved goals for improvement and finding secondary sources that prove their points to replace current citations would be a main goal of mine. Overall I think the article is in good shape and commend this group on their efforts. UAslam-Mir (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine

@Cvo.UCSF:, @Vtran1337:, @Tvu2020:, @Vmelgarejocovarrubias: As a member of WP:WikiProject Medicine I have volunteered to watch this article while it is a Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020) assignment. See comments below. Feel free to ask me questions here or on my Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment ended with not contact from students. None of the students did any editing or commenting after August 5 even though the assignment was scheduled to run through August 21. David notMD (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some of the recent referencing is to individual clinical trials, which WP:MEDRS frowns upon. Are there reviews that can be substituted? David notMD (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Efficacy content and refs for individual clinical trials with a review that was already cited elsewhere in the article. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy section

The content in the subsections is so short that there is no reason to have subsection titles. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed subsection titles. David notMD (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]