Talk:Pulmonary aspiration

mention of fasting before surgery?

What is this referring to? what does fasting or surgery have to do with the article, and why would it belong in the risk factors section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.21.24 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

fasting is a known and established method for ensuring that stomachs are empty before starting surgery and preventing food from refluxing back to the airways. Markbenjamin (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

vomitoria

I've worked in operating theatres for twenty years and this is the first time i've even heard of "vomitoria" in ORs let alone seen one. I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. In addition the concept of "vomitoria" is a myth relating to Roman times, vomitoria was the name for exits from public places, unrelated to the English word "vomit" related to food. I'd like to delete this sentence. Markbenjamin (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2024 and 22 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smhm97 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LiftOffIn321.

— Assignment last updated by Wendyxieyang (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My name is Savanah and I am planning to edit this article to make it more reader-friendly, especially to non-medical readers. I plan to clarify much of the medical jargon throughout the article. I am planing to re-organize and combine the first two sections (presentation and risk factors). I am also planning to add sections on presenting symptoms, evaluation/diagnosis, and complications of aspiration. --Smhm97 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Smhm97 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review for user Smhm97

As part of the WikiMed Fall 2024 course, I will provide peer review mainly on the author's proposed 'bibliography' sandbox changes. I will suggest other changes to other parts of the article that the author may have not focused on. However, the main focus will be on the author's current efforts. I understand's @Smhm97's goals are to revamp the introduction section, reduce medical jargon, reorganize causes and risk factors in more appropriate categories, and highlight the differences between types of aspiration.

Lead

The lead section is thorough, concise and written in appropriate language for the general public. It provides a solid foundation for the paper with a sentence on the definition, anatomy involved, pathophysiology, consequences, at risk individuals.

I agree with the removal over an too-in-depth anatomy correlate sentence within the lead section.

I appreciate the inclusion of the colloquium as "going down the wrong pipe," as this is language providers use with patients commonly.

Possible improvements: Although this is medical information that is well-described and the lead section could be improved by adding citations to support the information provided in the first and second lead paragraph. Another option for improvement, is to consider changing the infobox picture. Currently it is three radiographic images that have been stitched together and it may be difficult for the general public to interpret. This image could be added to the diagnosis section instead.

Causes and risk factors section

Previously this article was organized by a presentation and risk factors section. I agree with change to causes and risk factors section. Author has added subcategories of neurological impairment, pulmonary disease, oropharyngeal disorders and medications that is a great improvement over previous version in which one paragraph lumped all this together. Information is written neutrally with reputable sources.

Possible improvements: I would suggest the addition of a citation to the last sentence of pulmonary disease section stating conditions requiring mechanical ventilation are at increased risk. Consider removing 'etc.' at the end of parentheses.

Complications section

Previously this section was subcategorized into acid-related and bacterial. These descriptors are too broad and vague. I agree with the author's change to rewrite and highlight the differences between aspiration pneumonia and aspiration pneumonitis.

Other

This is not the focus areas for the author but is could be potential areas of improvement for anyone else who decides to work article after. The prevention section is well-described but must be supported by the inclusion of citations.The histopathology image can be removed as it does not add much to this discussion for a general reader.

Overall,

This has been great work by the author. They are added 12 new peer-reviewed sources, successfully reduced the medical jargon, and appropriately organized and included more information to a page that was lacking previously. LiftOffIn321 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this very helpful feedback. For the lead section, I agreed with your suggestions and added citations to support the information throughout this section. I also moved the lead image - I agree that it is a somewhat confusing image, especially to be at the beginning of the article. I moved it to the evaluation section where barium swallow is described. For the causes and risk factors section - I agreed with the suggestion to add citations to this section.

Thank you for the feedback. Smhm97 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)