Talk:Confusion Assessment Method
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Hello! This is a new page for a diagnostic tool commonly used in medical practice (in particular the CAM-ICU adaptation of it). I will continue to add more sections for this including sections on:
Elements of the Score
Interpretation
The CAM-ICU
Other Adaptations
Clinical Applications
Limitations
Open to other input, thank you.
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Agalberth (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]I am a member of the author's class and am providing a peer review of his work to date.
Lead
[edit]-Overall, covers the important information in a concise way
-Revise formatting -- remove Intro header so that Intro section will become Lead.
-Recommend revising for readability even though this is targeted at students/providers -- currently grade 16 level
Overall: Excellent
Content
[edit]-I really like how you organized the sections, they seem to cover the important information
-Consider adding a history section (i.e. when/where this was developed, when it became widely used, etc.)
-The elements of score section is a bit confusing. The diagnostic algorithm chart you included covers the four features best able to ID delirium that are included in the second part of the assessment, but it is unclear how the first part assesses the 9 features of delirium. A little more detail would be nice.
-Table is very helpful here
Overall: Good
Tone and Balance
[edit]-Balance and tone are very appropriate throughout
-Might be worthwhile explaining how widespread CAM is, since I believe there are other popular delirium assessment methods used elsewhere
Overall: Excellent
Sources and References
[edit]-Sources are appropriately varied given the scope of the article
-Great inclusion of some newer sources that are not peer-reviewed articles
-All links work
Overall: Excellent
Organization
[edit]-Organization is appropriate throughout
-Would recommend revising all content for readability
-I like the Adaptations section, if you wanted to add more you could include more sub-sections for the other types but this isn't necessary
Overall: Excellent
For New Articles
[edit]-Meets notability requirements
-Reference list seems appropriate, probably not fully exhaustive
-No links to other articles in the draft, would recommend adding some links
Overall: Excellent
Overall impressions
[edit]Great work so far on this new article! Only a few tweaks are needed to make things a bit stronger, particularly focusing on readability. The audience for this article seems to be health students and professionals, and the tone is probably appropriate for them, but it could still be modified to read more smoothly. You can also add a bit more context of how widespread this assessment method is, both in clinical practice and research. I think this is overall a solid article for something so new. FutureMD-SR (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)