Jump to content

Talk:Percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

.

Assignment

[edit]

I will be working on this page in an attempt to expand the information on this subject for a class assignment. Ecapelle (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curtis Bixenstine

[edit]

Comments from Mjurgens369

[edit]
  • There was at least one instance of repeated wikilinks that I saw, like linking to fetoscopy twice in the article. Words like "miscarriage" are linked later in the article even when they appear earlier on, so you might want to consider changing that. Also, a few other phrases like cesarean section might deserve a link.
  • Risks section could use a source, or you could just combined this section with procedure since you list a lot of the risks there.
  • I had trouble clarifying the citation used after "As an example, in the United States fetal viability typically occurs at about 24 weeks of gestation, and in Portugal it is at about 25 weeks." These statistics might be somewhere on the site, but the link in citations does not go directly to a page where they are.
  • In paragraph 2 under procedure, you might want to consider adding a bit about the risk of sampling in anterior position if you want to put in the risks for the posterior position.
    • there isn't any specific risk for sampling in the anterior position that is different from the general risks of the procedure which are already mentioned. This is why I did not mention risks for the anterior position specifically. Akhan50699 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5 under procedure could use a citation.
  • The sentence "PUBS has largely replaced fetoscopy, which has a much higher rate of miscarriage." in paragraph 6 under procedure could be taken out because you talk about it earlier in the article.
  • Last sentence of paragraph 2 or indications and contraindications is a little confusing; you say that the test shouldn't be done to prevent the fetus from getting HIV, but you also say that it should be done to see if the fetus has HIV. 
*The single umbilical artery section is informative, but it has quite a bit of information that isn't as relevant to PUBS.  You might want to consider making this a smaller part of procedure or risks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjurgens369 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nvarade

[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarade (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Jfriend2

[edit]

Jfriend2 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Rglastet

[edit]
  • Under the history section, "...Adamsons reported the removal of a uterus in a fetus who had a buildup of fluid and ended up dying..." sounds like they removed the fetus' uterus. Maybe rephrase this sentence so it is a little clearer.
  • I'm not sure about the wikipedia rules for this, but in the history section, source 5 is cited 4 times in a row. It may be less cluttered to cite it once at the end of the sentences from that reference.
    • Combined a sentence to clean it up, but keep the references. I'm concerned about plagiarism if I don't leave it in, but I think it's clean up a little more. Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second to last sentence of the history section, the needle is referred to as a "who" so maybe rearrange the sentence to say something like: "...with a needle and monitored its maneuvers with an ultrasound."
  • Alternating between saying PUBS and cordocentesis is slightly confusing. I would recommend sticking to one term throughout the article.
  • Good use of pictures. If possible, a figure of the procedure would be helpful.

Rglastet (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biolprof

[edit]

Biolprof (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Biosthmors

[edit]

I noticed that a 1994 source is being used in the contraindications paragraph to summarize clinical guidelines. That doesn't meet WP:MEDDATE, which asks for recent sources, such as those within the last several years, if possible. Might there be much more recent medical literature available? {{update}} and {{update inline}} could be used within the article to mark these issues if they aren't addressed. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found some more recent literature on this section. It is difficult because these were not as detailed, and this procedure is not used as frequently with the medical advances of amniocentesis, chorionic villi, etc. Thank you for pointing that out though; I didn't even know about those guidelines. Ecapelle (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Estephe9

[edit]
  • While the procedure of PUBS is well explained, I think that some figures could be beneficial to help make this easier to understand. If not a picture or diagram of the entire procedure, at least an image of some of the different aspects of the procedure (tools, parts of the body involved, etc.). Estephe9 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree! Anam told me she was working on hand drawing a figure to post because there aren't any that are very readily available without copyrights, etc. Check back soon! Ecapelle (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from iamwillthinnes

[edit]
  • Associated Risks section should be Associated risks.
  • Would it be possible to break up the procedures section? It's a large wall of text. A figure or subsections might be useful.

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Percutaneous_umbilical_cord_blood_sampling&oldid=1203607314"