Talk:Diffuse neonatal hemangiomatosis

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II 2022 Group 6 Proposed Edits

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anewens, Snschmidt, Mdchee, Itzhou (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Smguzman, Helendhuynh, Matthew.Lee4, Alukyo1.

— Assignment last updated by Matthew.Lee4 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit that I propose is to include other sites of internal organ lesions that can happen alongside diffuse neonatal hemangiomatosis (DNH). The article only included the most common visceral organ involvement, the liver. But I included the intestines, lungs, nervous system, and skeletal system. In addition, I simplified the language of “lesions” to “damage.” - Anewens

The edit I propose is changing "patients" to "newborn babies affected with this disease", in order to make this article more appropriate for the general public to read.- Itzhou

The edit that I propose is adding a study that was performed on eight infants that were diagnosed with infantile hepatic hemangiomas (IHH) and the outcome of using Propranolol as a second line treatment after failure of corticosteroid use. - Mdchee

The edit that I propose is adding an additional study that was performed on a neonatal that tried/failed four weeks of corticosteroid treatment and the medical team administered Propranolol as a second line treatment option and had successful treatment outcomes with minimal adverse effects. I also changed the word "patients" to "individuals"-Snschmidt

The edit I did today was I fixed some grammatical errors and added easier language. 67.188.210.229 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On 07/26, I added 2 new sources each discussing retrospective reviews of hepatic hemangiomas in infants. Both reviews followed infants with hepatic hemangiomas for roughly 10 years, with one of the reviews talking about the management and outcome of the condition. I also edited some grammar errors in one of the paragraphs under treatment with propranolol and cleaned up some of the sentences for better flow. - Mdchee

On 07/26, The edit I included today was adding a reference for including more details into the pathophysiology of this disease state and adding a second reference to include the differential diagnosis between DNH and MLT.- Itzhou

On 07/26, I added information regarding hepatic hemangiomas and the use of Mtor inhibitors. -Anewens

On 07/26, I added the paragraph about the use of cyclophosphamide treatment and how it's important to differentiate the diagnosis in order to ensure adequate treatment is being utilized. -Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

On 07/28, I added a section on the epidemiology of IH, mechanism of action of beta-blockers in treating IH, and an additional study looking at propranolol as a first-line treatment option for IH.- Mdchee

On 07/28, I wrote about the intracranial hemangiomas, and the case report that goes with it. This case report exemplifies the rarity of intracranial hemangiomas and the presentation of them. Also, I wrote a discussion, where it provides new information about intracranial hemangiomas. I also added to the treatment of cyclophosphamide, and how there were two other case reports. They found that cyclophosphamide was the most effective medication in these two case reports. Finally, I added the other therapies of radiotherapy and surgery, and how they are not typically used any more.-Anewens

On 07/28, The edit I proposed today was entering information into the mechanism of the disease and further details into the classification of the disease based on severity and presentation. -Itzhou

On 07/28, I added additional information on why radiation therapy is not a treatment option. I also added additional information regarding the use of cyclophosphamide in therapy and interferon alpha-2a. -Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

On 07/31, I added the following two sections along with the information: Oral Corticosteroids, VCR. I also added reference #15, 16, and 31. -Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

On 08/01, we collectively as a group made the recommended changes based on our peer review: corrected grammar errors, combined the diagnosis/differential diagnosis sections together, renamed "Proposed Treatments" to "Future Directional Treatments", and corrected a reference. - Mdchee, Anewens, Itzhou, Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

On 08/02, I corrected some grammatical errors and changed some words to lay language. -Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Snschmidt (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

On 8/2, the edit that I did was I fixed grammatical errors and added lay language. 67.188.210.229 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On 08/03, I corrected some grammatical errors and explained what Mesna was used for. -Snschmidt Snschmidt (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC) On 8/1, I edited the peer review suggestions. Anewens (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On 8/2, I edited some grammatical errors and added lay language. Anewens (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On 8/4, I edited some grammatical errors. Anewens (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On 08/04, we collectively as a group assessed the article for any grammatical errors or the presence of any predatory journals (we determined that none were cited). We also corrected references #8/9 and #20/21 because they were duplicates. -Snschmidt, Mdchee, Anewens,Itzhou

Snschmidt (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Snowlan (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]  

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?  

• Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

• Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]  
• Person C answers: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]
• Person D answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

Helendhuynh (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The edits add a lot more content and organization to the article! One of the suggestions would be to group Diagnosis and Differential Diagnosis together to help improve flow of the article; maybe changing the lead title: "Proposed Treatment" to "Future Directional Treatments" or "Other Treatment Possibilities" will help with separating what is already a determined treatment and what is not (but all the information in these sections is so good)! Alukyo1 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

I am unable to see the goals that were set for the article, but I believe the group made lots of improvement and still have time to continue making minor changes to their article to make it more organized and clear! Alukyo1 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. Using words like "most common", "it is believed", "may" indicate that they are referencing what they learned from other sources and not making claims without evidence. Even when referring to case studies, these cases were presented in a very neutral way - thus being more informative than persuasive. Alukyo1 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Alukyo1 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. The group used reliable sources from journals that where secondary sources. After reading a few of the abstracts, the content summarized by the group accurate reflects the findings from the articles. The group used multiple sources on the topic of diffuse neonatal hemangiomatosis.
2. The group has greatly improved the article and add many secondary sources to backup their claims and edits. The group included sections appropriate to wikipedia articles on diseases and it was really easy to read although the topic was dense. They used lay language as much as possible, but more lay language could be used in the treatment section. There are some grammatical errors to be fixed but overall the article was improved and lots of great sources were used.
3. The edits reflect the language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. When talking about the population most affected by this diseases, the group used female sex to describe the population. They also used infants to refer the the individuals as opposed to patients.

Helendhuynh (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]  

The Lead was concise and informative; I appreciate the hyperlinks used for medical terminology. The majority content added is up to date. There are some older articles referenced, for example when talking about corticosteroid use the article referenced is from 1973. But you do address that the treatment with corticosteroids is historic and has fallen out of favor. The organization is clear and the tone of the article is neutral. The only draw back is that it the article has moments where lay language is not utilized. It may be difficult for people to understand without looking up terminology. Smguzman (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

I also could not find their goals for improvement but the team added a substantial amount of information to the article, citing multiple case reports and studies. I see all the hard work they put into this article and I can only imagine that they met their goals. Smguzman (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3: Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

There is a citation missing for after the first paragraph of the "Hepatic hemangiomas section". Otherwise everything is cited and sources where reputable. It seems like the primary literature was from case reports and small studies but that is understandable given the rarity of the disease. Smguzman (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes. The edits makes the article more organized and easier to follow. One feedback would be about the “proposed treatments section”. I think rewording it differently make it easier to follow as I was a bit confused with that section especially it is following the section “treatment”. I also think differential diagnosis and diagnosis can be put closer together so that it flows more naturally.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

With each edit and improvement the group made, I think it certainly made the article more helpful and better.

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

Yes. The format is clear and organized. I can follow the article easily.

Matthew.Lee4 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)