Talk:Gray baby syndrome

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gray baby syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.Hancock, Future UCSF PharmD, C.Santamaria, UCSF PharmD candidate, Chriscui0823. Peer reviewers: Skimucsf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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): Y.Ma100, P. Lee UCSF, Rmondal, UCSF, C. Lin, Future UCSF Pharm.D..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please add mechanism also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.20.69 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Updating diagnosis section[reply]

A couple of notes as you're getting started

Hi UCSF folks. Welcome! I'm glad to see new editors interested in medicine-related articles! Just a couple of quick notes to help guide your research and thinking.

Over the years, we've hammered out a list of suggested sections for articles on diseases/syndromes. You can find them here. I often find the list helpful to organize my research and writing.
Per Wikipedia is not a manual and Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource, we typically avoid giving recommendations in Wikipedia's voice. I.e. we wouldn't say "X should be treated with Y" (thus recommending something in Wikipedia's voice). Instead, we'd be more precise in describing the recommendation, e.g. "The American College of Obstetricians recommends treating X with Y." There are a few such mis-recommendations in the article. If you could add fixing them to your to-do list, that would be great.

Other than that, happy editing! I'll try to keep an eye on this talk page, so if you have questions as you get started feel free to ask here. For broader questions about medical editing, feel free to post at WT:MED to get more opinions. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations 2 2021, Group 7 Goals & Proposed Edits

Plan to strengthen the treatment section to add papers and guidelines.
Expand on what the antibiotic chloramphenicol is used for.
Plan to elaborate on the diagnosis section per the previous comment.
Citing the articles referenced.

C.Hancock, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected citations #1-9 C.Hancock, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected citations #10-18 C.Santamaria, UCSF PharmD candidate (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

corrected citations #19-27Chriscui0823 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations 2 2021, Group 25 Peer Review

1. I believe the group edits have substantially improved the article. I especially like how although the pathophysiology section has a lot of medical terms that might not be known by someone who doesn't have a medical background, the mechanism of development of gray baby syndrome is easily understood and explained well so that anyone can understand. 2. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? The edit's contributed to the article are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medical articles. The article has has an overview of what gray baby syndrome is and sections correlating to signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Appropriate guidelines for prevention and treatment were referenced and all of the edits made were written in lay-language so that anyone can understand what is being said. S. de Jesus, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article has been significantly improved and expanded on. The expansion of the diagnosis section as well as the inclusion of the prevention section helped to flush out the article. Adding the treatment section as well helped to fully complete the topic, covering what the disease is, how it occurs, prevention, and treatment. This has significantly improved the article. The group has met their goals. They expanded on chloramphenicol, the diagnosis and treatment sections, and added sources to already existing topics. 2. Are the points included verifiable and cited secondary sources that are freely available? All the sources cited were freely accessible except for 2. When trying to open the full text through an incognito tab, I was unable to access the text for pmid 21850123 and pmid 11838570. All the other sources were fully accessible. Ghovhanessian (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The group's edits improve the article by providing additional information about the topic and medical terms within the topic. For example, the group further defines what chloramphenicol is and how it is relevant to the topic. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement as they kept the clearly structured sections but with extra medical information within each section. The signs and symptoms section provides more than one reference for warning signs, allowing informed decision making. 2. The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. In addition to the signs and symptoms section where it provides two different references for different serum concentration levels as a warning sign, the pathophysiology section also includes available causes/mechanisms of gray baby syndrome so the readers have full information on the topic (instead of going with one belief).

Skimucsf (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Improvements added by the group have helped the article develop a better flow of content material. Also, expanding on treatment was an important addition as providing reliable information from appropriate resources in medicine can help readers have a better understanding of the disease state and its possible treatment options. The article is also very well organized and clearly follows the appropriate format. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement as they provided more information on diagnosis, antibiotic chloramphenicol and enhnaced treatment section by providing findings from Review literature. 2. The article is written in lay-language and it follows a steady flow, suggesting that editors used their own words to provide information drawn from other resources. Overall, The article does not containt any evidence of unatrributed plagiarism, plagiarism of cited sources or close paraphrasing.

AGhajar (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]