Jump to content

Talk:Congenital blindness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cindycai1998, Shannonchan futurepharmd, Celestenoelle.bustria, Jdpcal (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group [C] proposed edits

[edit]

1. Lead: The first sentence is a run-on sentence. Additionally, this definition of Congenital Blindness does not align with the source it cites. The out-of-date 2008 East African Journal of Ophthalmology that it references actually defines "Childhood Blindness" rather than "Congenital". Moreover, the current definition on Wikipedia is plagiarized. We propose to define Congenital Blindness as it is written by the National Institutes of Health. Celestenoelle.bustria (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The lead also mentions gene therapy, but it does not include a source. It also calls gene therapy a cure; however, this needs to be verified. The word "cure" is a non-specific and emotionally-loaded word that should be changed. Additionally, the definition of "postnatal" needs to be revised in accordance with the WHO definition. [1] The last portion of the lead should be furthered with separate epidemiology and treatment sections. Celestenoelle.bustria (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


2. Causes: The prenatal section needs to be more than just a list. Some of the sources are also from more than 20 years ago and need to be updated. Some possible citations for listed causes can be: For Leber's Congenital Amauorosis [2]. For Retinopathy of Prematurity and other causes [3] Celestenoelle.bustria (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) The postnatal section uses heavy science terms and can be simplified for accessibility to a wider audience. The images used for this section do not add any real value as the images are not referenced or explained in the greater text. The sources for this section should be updated to a systematic review. Shannonchan futurepharmd (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Previous authors listed measles as one of the prenatal causes of congenital blindness. However, after reading through the reference article, it was found that measles-caused blindness occurs postnatally.[4]So it should be removed from the section. Additional causes of prenatal blindness include birth defects such as anophthalmos (born with only one eye or lost both eyes), microphthalmos (underdevelopment of one or both eyes), and coloboma (a portion of tissue missing in the eye(s)). Other causes are congenital cataract (cloudiness of the lens of the eye(s)), retinal genetic abnormalities like Leber's congenital amaurosis (severe vision loss in early childhood), infantile glaucoma (increased pressure in the eyes leading to eye nerve damage and blindness), and congenital cloudy cornea.[5]Cindycai1998 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) I would suggest changing the reference for Retinopathy of prematurity. In the original reference, it doesn't explicitly talk about Retinopathy of prematurity as the cause of prenatal congenital blindness. New reference will be the paper written by Kim and et al.[6]Cindycai1998 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) The reference of congenital Cataract was back in 1999, new reference should be updated. New reference will be the paper written by Şekeroğlu and et al.[7]Ophthalmia neonatorum belongs to the section of postnatal, instead of the prenatal. [8]Cindycai1998 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Two new congenital infections causing newborn blindness have been added under the infection section. This addition helps the reader understand what kinds of infections during pregnancy can lead to birth defects and affect the baby's vision.Cindycai1998 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


3. Diagnosis: We will update to the American spelling for words like pediatrics. We will also define or link an explanation for some of the more technical terms like colomba and aniridia. The last sentence also requires a source and we should expand the information on diagnosing pregnant women and genetic testing. Furthermore, more inclusive language should be used in mention of gender.

4. Gene Therapy Treatment: We will update this section to a more comprehensive research section that includes more current research. This section also includes mention of gene therapy that directly contradicts what is stated in the lead.

5. Signs and symptoms: This is a new section. Even though congenital blindness is self-explanatory, there are two major categories: low vision and severe ocular anomalies, such as Anophthalmos (being born with only one eye or losing both eyes), Microphthalmos (underdevelopment of one or both eyes), and Coloboma (a portion of tissue missing in the eye(s)).Cindycai1998 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We hope to add the following sections based on the systematic reviews that we find. These sections are as follow: Congenital vs. Childhood Blindness, Signs & Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, Prevention (screening), and research

Sources to be used include PCORI, Cochrane, AHRQ, WHO, and National Level Health Guidelines. Some grammatical errors were already edited directly into the article sandbox. All members contributed equally to this assignment for small group session #1. Jdpcal (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "WHO Technical Consultation on Postpartum and Postnatal Care".
  2. ^ "Leber's Congenital Amaurosis: Current Concepts of Genotype-Phenotype Correlations".
  3. ^ "Causes of Childhood Blindness in the United States using the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight)".
  4. ^ "Twenty years of childhood blindness: what have we learnt?".
  5. ^ "Severe Visual Impairment and Blindness in Infants: Causes and Opportunities for Control".
  6. ^ "Retinopathy of prematurity: a review of risk factors and their clinical significance".
  7. ^ "Congenital Cataract and Its Genetics: The Era of Next-Generation Sequencing".
  8. ^ "Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum".

Foundations II 2023 Peer Reviews

[edit]

Part 1

Comparing the article to what it was previously, the group's edits greatly improve the article. The addition of a research section with ongoing advancements is a nice touch. I would recommend if not adding additional points of research, compiling the Research main heading and Gene Therapy sub-heading into one. Overall, the group has definitely achieved their overall goals for improvement. Maximixam (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references you chose to use to improve the article are great choices. having said that, for the signs and symptoms sections, I believe you can add more references, specifically for the first two sentences. Are you using reference number 6 to be used for the previous two sentences? BKgunner2003 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The group has improved in both structure and sources which provide greater impact for the article. Dividing topics into different headers hugely helps readers to easily follow. The group should use more lay language into the article, I suggest linking any terminology or scientific words with definition if needed. Sum it up, the group has incredibly improved the article following the overall goals. Kkeu (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the groups edits substantially improved the article. I think the images added make the article better and they are all organized very nicely. I think they have achieved their goals for improvement. I also like the addition of the research section. Timothy Kein (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Timothy[reply]

Part 2

I believe the draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. The article is organized and reflective of all the necessary points to bring the information across. Also, I believe their sources are all neutral and this article does not convey a bias. Timothy Kein (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Timothy Kein[reply]
All of the references are reliable and verifiable that are from the peer reviewed journals and government databases that can be accessed freely. BKgunner2003 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are mostly consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. There are some inconsistencies throughout the article. There is missing punctuation (sentence 4) and citations are not consistent with placement before and after periods (sentence 1 vs 4). Some sections are also missing citations. For instance, the mutations section under LCA has good information, but not citations until the end of the paragraph. There could also be more linking. In the first paragraph, can you link to other Wikipedia pages for postnatal and prenatal stages? Linking for premature birth, refractive error, and congenital cataract would also be useful. That being said, the images used comply with Wikipedia's rules and do not violate their terms. Maximixam (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article reflects language that support diversity, equity, and inclusion. The group has focus on general diagnosis which could potentially happen to all children or infants. They also provides general percentage of diagnosis could happen from prenatal stage and inherited disease. The rest of the information provided all fair and equally focus on screening and treatment to all children. Kkeu (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group [C] references review

[edit]

(a) Our group has reviewed all the references and that they are now correctly formatted.

  • Cindycai1998 reviewed #1-9
  • Celestenoelle.bustria reviewed #10-16,18
  • Shannonchan futurepharmd reviewed #17-25, 28-34
  • Jdpcal reviewed #26, 35-41

(b)

  • Fixed dates for references #27 & 34.
  • #19 retrieved July 2023, publication date updated
  • Reference #6 was written back in 1999. New reference added
  • Updated date for reference #7-10
  • Removed 2011 journal source for Retinoblastoma. Replaced with systematic review and updated date to be consistent with Wiki style for reference #18
  • Updated date for references #28-34

(c)

  • References 7 and 14 (from the original reference sequence) were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congenital_blindness&oldid=1201099076"