Talk:Spinal precautions

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): Azwilliams55 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shaddizal.

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

I plan to significantly expand this stub with more information on pre- and post- hospital spinal precautions and what they entail by affected area of the spinal cord. I will update sources and list several more. I plan to add an indications, history, and international section. I will rename uses to 'methods' and will expand this to cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. I will move the c-spine clearance to its own section labelled 'removing precautions'. Azwilliams55 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer-review of Spinal Precuations 11/18

Lead:

• The article title is well explained and summarized succinctly in the first sentence of the article.
• Great job laying out the statistics of spinal cord injuries, the mechanism of injuries, and the importance of addressing spinal cord injuries in relation to their sequelae
• In the last sentence of the lead paragraph, I would incorporate more neutral language. Instead of saying "use of spinal precautions is controversial," I would say something more neutral like "Some argue that the use of spinal precautions is controversial because there may be unclear benefits and significant drawbacks such as pressure ulcers..."

Content:

• In the indications section, the "National Association of EMS Physicians" could be a link to another wikipedia article, or a red link if one doesn't exist
• Last sentence of indications section just need a slight tweak to grammar "trauma to the back"
• Overall, great use of sources in the indications section and lead section
• I appreciate that the methods section outlines the highlights of spinal precautions and the tools used, instead of detailing step-by-step instructions
• Great job in the controversy section at utilizing neutral language, explaining the controversial nature of the argument, and providing justification and rationale for the continued use and recommendation of spinal precautions by major medical societies
• The explanations of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal clearance and methods for immobilization were clear, concise, and provided with excellent diagrams
• For the x-ray image, I would consider adding more explanation between the right and left half of the image, and include a parenthesis of (red arrow) after the word "fracture" to make the image more clear to those who can't read x-rays. I would also explain the difference between the right and left half of the image with the right half of the image showing fixation screws in the cervical spine.

Tone and Balance:

• The tone and balance of the article is overall neutral and displays a great in-depth explanation of spinal precautions.
• Great job in the controversy section at utilizing neutral language, explaining the controversial nature of the argument, and providing justification and rationale for the continued use and recommendation of spinal precautions by major medical societies
• Minor adjustments to have a more neutral tone are outlined above and copied below here for reference:
  • In the last sentence of the lead paragraph, I would incorporate more neutral language. Instead of saying "use of spinal precautions is controversial," I would say something more neutral like "Some argue that the use of spinal precautions is controversial because there may be unclear benefits and significant drawbacks such as pressure ulcers..."

Sources and References:

• The sources and references provided throughout the article are solid secondary sources and there are in-text citations in every section for every major statement.
• The article also does a great job with outlining the scarcity of evidence regarding spinal precautions in the trauma patient population.

Organization:

• The organization of the article is clear, concise, and logical with appropriate sections and subheadings.

Images and Media:

• The images and media in this section are appropriate and provide context to the description of spinal immobilization techniques and spinal injuries. Only minor adjustment to the images is recommended and outlined below:
  • For the x-ray image, I would consider adding more explanation between the right and left half of the image, and include a parenthesis of (red arrow) after the word "fracture" to make the image more clear to those who can't read x-rays. I would also explain the difference between the right and left half of the image with the right half of the image showing fixation screws in the cervical spine.

Overall Impressions:

• Overall, this article has an informative lead section, great neutral tone and balance, excellent organization, good use of images, and excellent use of references to describe spinal precautions in the emergency and trauma medicine settings.
• The article is currently rated as a "start" class but now the article reads at least like a C-class article with the abundance of references to support the article's claims and excellent media to provide background context to the content.
• The organization, flow, and tone of the article are also appropriate and follow a neutral tone that explains justifications and criticisms of spinal precautions in a scientific manner.

Shady Faltaous (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this peer review! I agree with all recommendations. I have clarified that some authors find precautions controversial and provided a few citations for that, updated the x-ray caption, and fixed the grammatical error. I plan to submit this article for a regrade. Azwilliams55 (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)