Talk:Kidney stone disease/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will provide a few comments over the next few days:

Typically we do not use patient ( here it is used about 15 times ).

I have eliminated all instances of the term "patient". DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of words that are technical and need to be either linked or simplified ie "Postrenal azotemia and hydronephrosis" and "renal colic" for example

I have provided links for all technical terms, including postrenal azotemia, hydronephrosis, and renal colic. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units should be both in SI and American ( yes there are still lots who use those other units sigh )

I have added conversion templates where applicable. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on cause mixes cause and pathophysiology. IMO would be best to separate the two. Molecular mechanisms would be under patho. What proportion is due to genetics, diet, meds, lifestyle etc would be under cause.

I have reorganized text and created a ==Pathophysiology== section. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification may be best as a subheading under diagnosis.

This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the textbooks need ISBNs added

All books have ISBN except McNutt (there is no ISBN for this source published in 1893) and Litwin (this is not really a textbook, but rather a 716 page report). DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on managements seems to be a mix of preventative measures and treatment measures. The Preventative stuff (diuretics, urine alkalization) should be move to that section. Some of the stuff (urine alkalization) does not have any refs.

This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on signs and symptoms starts with "Signs of urolithiasis include oliguria". I have seen many kidney stones in my carrier and not one person presented complaining of oliguria. I see flank pain radiating to the groin. It would be good if this section presented the most common symptoms first (also what percentage of kidney stones present with each symtom?)

This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles are preferred per WP:MEDRS. This for example is a primary research study PMID 16481635 but there is a better review article available here http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000317196 which gives an overview of the literature "stone risk is greater in those on a high or low calcium diet" Primary research studies should rarely if ever be used. Much of the article could probably be reffed to the review article provided.

Will add more as time goes on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced primary research studies with review articles and textbook refs in all instances where practical. DiverDave (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? The writer seems to have addressed everything so I trust more comments are forthcoming soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Away. Will check the rest of the article next week. The issue of primary research studies has not been fully addressed. With a topic of this importance plenty of review articles exist. Not sure if DriverDave is still working on this? So right now the article is on hold.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we may have some copyright violations that need to be cleaned up. I spot-checked just one source, and here's what I found:

Text

"The majority of indwelling ureteral stents can be removed during an office visit under topical anesthesia after resolution of the urolithiasis.[86]"

Source

"The majority of indwelling ureteral stents can be removed in the office with topical anesthesia using a flexible cytoscope and grasper."

Copyvio has been addressed; text now reads: "Most ureteral stents can be removed during an office visit under topical anesthesia after resolution of the urolithiasis." DiverDave (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd originally meant to say is this: The citations are a little odd. Normally, if you're citing a book only once, then you cite it just like anything else, without using shortened footnotes. Also, if you're supplying an ISBN, there's not really any need for the links to books.google.com, but if you want to, then you might want to read WP:CITE#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages on how to shorten the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just corrected this situation. Thanks for clarifying this point; I find the Notes and References sections to be the most difficult parts to get correctly formatted. DiverDave (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great will continue with the review in a couple of days.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. Will look again tomorrow and continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some none review articles used as references and some of the references are more than 10 years old such as this PMID 7504361 and this PMID 9818798 Wondering if we could use more uptodate sources?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are signs or symptoms "Postrenal azotemia and hydronephrosis can be observed following the obstruction of urine flow through one or both ureters.[4]" but would be more reasonable classificed as complications.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to include the character of pain to the symptoms section (as in stabbing, radiating, etc)? As there is a graphic illustrating the referred pain locations, it would seem potentially appropriate. On the other hand, there is the risk of a wikipedia self-diagnosis. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

This article has been under review now for 65 days. If there are outstanding problems then best to fail the nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the concerns above seem to be addressed. The one tweak above can be reworded but it's find as is for GA. Since further reminders have gone unheeded, I'm closing the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]