Talk:Long-term video-EEG monitoring/Archive 1

Archive 1

new source

doi:10.1136/practneurol-2015-001216 JFW | T@lk 10:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Student Purpose of Article

This article, written as part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, was drafted in order to provide a general overview on many sub-topics (such as history, medical uses, etc) of long-term video-EEG monitoring in order to replace an otherwise out-of-date, Stub-Class article. This broad overview was meant to provide an overarching summary of long-term video-EEG monitoring without providing extensive details in any one sub-topic of this theme as to provide as much new information on an otherwise minimally researched topic within Wikipedia.

Breezyjo1223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

The article is very comprehensible with clear sub topics. The topics covered were easy to follow and the main points were explained in detail. There were grammatical errors but very few at most such as in the sentence, "...extra-physiological artifacts and thus makes the data logs are susceptible to displaying false positives such as false seizure reports", I think there may be an extra word in there by accident.

3604weberk (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary review

Figures can be added in the summary section which would help readers better understand this technique. In addition, the result of long-term video-EEG monitoring can also add in the content to give an example of this technique. Editors could include limitations and suitable conditions for the use of long-term video-EEG monitoring, which is also related to the technique. All in all, it provides general idea of long-term video-EEG monitoring and is useful for people who would like to understand the technique. Alice0iris (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

This is a very specific subject and this article contains a lot of information to inform readers on the topic! The information under society and culture is what stood out to me the most. The fact that someone can have long-term video-EEG monitoring done at their home is awesome! If there is a video on this topic that you can add to the article, that would be great, but other than that good job! Jenelove (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

Your article flows very well! You guys did a great job defining terms and you kept the information very broad so it is easy for the reader to understand. My only suggestion would be to add more links in your article because if the reader doesn’t have a science background they can easily click on the link for the word they do not understand. Overall, great job!

Cjungers (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)CJungers

Student BIOL 3501 Secondary Review

This article is really easy to read and flows nicely. I specifically like how you define the scientific words in the sentence they are used in which makes it easy to read for someone with a non-science background. I would add a citation in the history section for where you got that information. Overall, it is really well done!

MKoehler (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler

Student Secondary Review

I find that the article is easy to read, understand, and flows nicely throughout. It is helpful that you briefly define some of the words mentioned that could be more difficult to understand for a person that does not know much about the subject, but at the same time you are not going to much into detail where then it would become to difficult to understand the main point of the information being presented. I think it would be useful to add more images or figures throughout the article as a visual representation of some of the points being mentioned or talked about. Overall, great job with the article!

Danimcclo (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

Hey guys page looks pretty good. Reads like any other Wikipedia article you might see from a quick google search. Pretty concise, no unnecessary wordage and I think you cover the main points that could be derived form this topic. Some criticisms: The history section should either be deleted or expanded. One sentence for a section doesn't make your article look very complete or credible. Maybe add in ideas "from commonly used techniques involved in standard EEG testing." As you note in the single sentence. Medical Uses: Go over the sections a couple times, noticed some missing words like of, an, and ect. Also, in cases where you put clarifying statements in parentheses, maybe ditch the parentheses and instead expand on what it is your clarifying. Unable to understand exactly what you're describing without further research. Some links should probably be inserted as well so someone with questions on what terms mean can go and figure them out. Risks/Complications: Good, maybe throw in a picture to give an example of a person going through a study with an induced seizure? Or expand on the specific risks of the induced seizure. Staff training? Society and Culture: Last sentence in this section sounds like someones personal input and is not cited so definitely leads me to believe it is a personal thought. Read through again, does not flow super well. Maybe reorganize section or reword some sentences. In your research section you touch on what research is being done but I don't really understand why the animal models are important to further understanding the area of neurology in humans. What is the carry over? Are there any other really relevant studies that have been done you could specifically talk about? Maybe add the first uses/studies into your history section as well?

Going over the 6 criteria 1.) Intelligently written, however, I feel like I end up kind of confused after I read through each section, or maybe I'm just dumb who knows. Try to make each section written clearly enough that someone who doesn't know much about it will very clearly understand what an EEG is and how it works. Maybe include more pictures or graphs of data? I think that would be very helpful so a reader could see the information that is obtained with an EEG and can visually analyze the machines use themselves.

2.)Verifiable- Looks great in this sense! Went over your fifth source in more depth but all your other sources look good as well. Did not read anything that appeared to be un-cited or made up.

3.) Broad- You do cover a lot of information but, like I said in the overall review I think it could be simplified in some sections even more (particularly medical uses).

4 and 5.) Reads very neutral. Good.

6.) Definitely more images, data tables, charts? Better image of machine and it in use? I don;t know how you'd acquire these based on the Wikipedia guidelines but maybe if someone could construct a sample graph/data table?

Went over your fifth source associated with the social context of the EEG system. Honestly think you could extract way more information from this source, super good find, and everything you included does appear to be form the source with no hints of plagiarism or exaggerated writing. I think this section could sound more like the first couple paragraphs of the article and give a better overview of its everyday relevance and use.

Hope some of this helps. Good job so far and good luck!

-Respectfully William.eggers (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)William Eggers

student secondary Review

Overall, I think you guys did a good job. I don't know if the history section is necessary since it only contains one sentence, you may be able to work that information into a different section. Otherwise I thought your article was broad enough for the everyday reader to understand, flows well, has appropriate sources, and was overall well written. Mges24 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

1well written

-The history section doesn't really give much information about the history. Expand more or delete this section.

-medical uses

hyperlink EEG

"determining frequency the seizures”: fix this wording. Also, this sentence is very long.

add references to every paragraph

-legal issues

I’m not quite sure if humans can do this kind of procedure after reading this part

-Society and Culture

clinicians is misspelled

the last two sentences can be fixed

-Research

I feel this part is very specific

Suggestions (if there's information about it in your secondary reviews): Can you mention examples of specific life improvements using this technique?or data recorded from the technique? some graphs?

Maybe add a small physics part about the equipment if possible and a mechanisms part about how the equipment reflects information from the brain.

An economics part? as in how costly, etc.

2verifiable: All paragraphs should have citations.

3broad: All parts were well summarized with no extensive details, however try to add hyperlinks for uncommon terms.

4neutral: The information is unbiased.

6illustrated: add data from this technique

source: I choose source one. Information about this technique described in source one is reflected in this wikipedia article such as what’s it used for, what it can diagnose. I didn’t see a methods part in the article which could be included with their distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Bea2017

Response to Review

Thank you for your comments on our article.

We agree with you that our History section was lacking. We expanded the section to include more detail on how long-term EEG originated from standard EEG monitoring. We also added information about the mechanism of EEG data acquisition. The term “EEG” was already hyperlinked in the lead paragraph, so we did not link it a second time in Medical Uses. Also, we made sure that each paragraph referenced at least one article. Thank you for pointing out the specific grammar and sentence structure errors; we revised the instances you mentioned. We kept the Research section specific, since many of the previous sections presented simplified information on the topic. We wanted to designate a section to the specific research behind the development of the technique and information on more current research. We agree that the article would benefit from having a clearer connection between the technique and how a patient would benefit. We added a few sentences to the lead paragraph that provides more detail. We reviewed our references before the deadline to ensure that all of the paragraphs have citations and each source is properly cited. We agree that more hyperlinks were needed. We added at least four in each section for uncommon technical terms. We agree that the article does not present a bias. We were unable to find publicly-available figures that depict data collected from long-term EEG systems. However, we added more figures including an image of an EEG monitoring station and an figure with epileptic EEG waveforms that help to better explain the technique. CollPaulie (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Overall I'd say this is a well written article; the section headings chosen effectively describe long-term EEG and allow the article to flow in a logical manner. That said, there are a few instances in the article that discuss more complex topics or use higher level vocabulary that should be linked to other pages to allow readers to further understand the language being used. For example, the epileptogenic zones mentioned in "Medical Uses" could be anywhere in the brain. Moreover, it would be nice to see a brief history of the use and development of long-term EEG; such as how it progressed from standard EEG, who invented it, or even a brief overview of the development of the standard EEG. Furthermore, there should be some explanation as to how the brain waves are measured, especially if the development of the standard EEG is not addressed. Finally, the "Legal Issues" section seems to be more of a discussion regarding ethics than legality. For that reason I would think "ethical concerns" would be a better heading. However, if there have been any issues with law suits or other legal processes I would think that they would be more fitting here.

1) intelligently written: this seems to be true for the most part however I still am not sure a reader would be able to know how an EEG works or if there is a substantial difference between it and the long-term variation described here.

2) Verifiable: each of the sources seem pretty reliable, nothing questionable and no assumptions are made.

3) Broad: the information covered is substantial and I commend you for that. That said, it would be nice to see a little more specificity in the history and use sections. Furthermore, it might not be a bad idea to add a section describing how an EEG works.

4) Neutral: doesn't seem to have any bias. Awesome.

6) Images: It'd be nice to see a couple more images. Still the one you have with the EEG placed on the man's head is helpful to understand what an EEG would look like. However, it would be nice to specify the particular areas that are active in certain situations such as epileptic seizures o that I could know where those were. Furthermore, this could be accompanied by a graph showing the brain waves of a person experiencing a seizure versus the normal waves (not sure if that's possible but it'd be great to round things off).

Lastly, I read over your second article and it seems to be an insightful review of the techniques used in long-term EEG. As such, it wouldn't be a bad idea to provide more information on he techniques used in your own paper such as sleep deprived which could further your development of the article.

Overall good job, there's so much to cover with things like this and you are definitely off to a great start. I hope these reviews help guide you toward a successful and insightful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StepheJ (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Review

Thank you for your feedback on our article. We have provided details on more complex topics in the article and included links to other Wiki articles to better communicate the information. We significantly expanded our “History” section to include more details on how long-term EEG has developed from standard EEG, which you mentioned was lacking. We also included information on the data acquisition stage in EEG recordings in the same “History” section.

In response to your numbered comments:

I think we added sufficient information regarding how an EEG works and the differences between long-term and standard EEG. We agree with you that more background information on the mechanism of the device needed to be explained in more detail. We reviewed our references a final time to check that all of the sources are reliable and cited correctly. More information was added to the History section explaining both how an EEG works and the origin of long-term video monitoring from EEG. We modified our History section to describe both the mechanism of EEG data collection and the history of long-term EEG, instead of having a few sentences referencing an internal Wiki page. We agree that the article does not present a bias. We agree that the article would be improved with more images. We couldn’t find a figure showing brain activity of an epileptic vs. normal patient on Wiki Commons, although that would be a really good fit for the article. We did add an image demonstrating EEG output collected from an epileptic child. CollPaulie (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

William Eggers Primary Review Response

Greetings and we greatly appreciate your input in regards to improving our Wikipedia article on long-term video-EEG monitoring. Your critiques into how to improve our article were very insightful. To begin, we began by expanding the history of long-term EEG monitoring to not only go in more depth of the differences between standard EEG monitoring and long term EEG monitoring. Furthermore, the history section expanded into the actual mechanisms that EEG monitoring measures including analog signals converting to digital signals to analyze data. In the medical uses, we took out some parenthesis out and just stated the detail in full, however, sometimes creating an entirely new sentence to explain one sub topic in a list seemed unnecessary. Secondly, links to the articles that the information was better dispersed throughout the section, but specific links to terminology throughout the section was difficult due to the nuanced information not being present on Wikipedia. Maybe future students in this class can have the opportunity to delve into each specific type of long-term EEG monitoring technique. Grammar and verbiage were fixed for more concise writing. In regard to adding more photos, we could not find a patient going through the procedure, but we found the next best thing by adding images of the actual equipment as well as actual epileptic EEG output readings collected from a procedure. The instance of personal input was fixed to follow the neutral flow of the writing. Lastly, you are not dumb for not being able to understand the concepts being presented on the page. This topic is difficult and we tried our best to make the concept easier to understand by linking relatively niche terminology to other Wikipedia pages and articles to further the understanding of the topic for the reader. I hope our changes are helpful and thank you again for your input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.boyd.mu (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CollPaulie, Breezyjo1223.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)