Talk:Triple test score

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelseysouza, Pharmer1934, PiggyTofu, Mktthind13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vbundang, NagatAlrubati, Mahnoorazfar, FutureHealthcare.

— Assignment last updated by FutureHealthcare (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update on cost effectiveness of using TTS compared to traditional methods^[1]PiggyTofu (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a section on cost comparisonPiggyTofu (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a section on the diagnostic value of fine-needle aspiration biopsy for breast masses. ^[2] Pharmer1934 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a section on the accuracy of the Triple Test Score Mktthind13 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify any similar terms that someone might confuse with the triple test score (ex. triple screen (a prenatal test) Chelseysouza (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify the difference between the BIRAD system and TTSPiggyTofu (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3768091. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22277164/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Text moved from article to here

This text was removed from the article and pasted here:

Please note medical practices evolve over time. For accurate and up-to-date information on the current use of TSS in the medical field, seek additional information from credible sources.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review (Foundations II 2023)

The group's edits substantially improve the article as described in Wikipedia "guiding framework". All added content is relevant to the topic and greatly expands on each major section added. There was one spelling error and one grammatical error, but I fixed it directly before I could figure out the peer review assignment. All goals listed under the group's "Goals" section in the talk page have been achieved. A detailed cost comparison against other testing methods as been added. A section for fine-needle aspiration biopsy has been added. Accuracy ranges for each component of the triple test score has been stated with up to date citations. Similar and alternate terms have been clarified. The differences between TTS and BIRADs has been explained.

All content submitted reflects a neutral point of view. All additions are solely information, without bias toward any position. For example, when TTS is compared to two other methods of testing, there is no language that conveys a preference for a certain method. Additionally each component of the triple test score has an accuracy range listed, each backed by evidence, and no non-evidence-based comparison is stated. The content is well-written, and easy to read from the perspective of a lay person.

Vbundang (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vbundang,

Thanks for your comments and making those edits for us! We are trying to make it as easy to read as possible without adding any bias. I think there were some issues with how our article flowed that we have changed to make it a bit easier to read than it was before and that was done based on the feedback you and your group provided!

best,

Mktthind13 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group's edit substantially improved the article as described in the peer review grading framework. Everything in the article is related to the topic or are linked to the topic, thoroughly explained with no bias. The article is neutral and all the materials are relevant. The citations are relevant and supports the article mentioned. One of the reference was duplicate but was relevant to other article mentioned (that is reference #11 and #27). The article have achieved its overall goal of improvement. Mahnoorazfar (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)mahnoorazfar[reply]

Thank you! We have removed the duplicate references. PiggyTofu (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits are consistent with the Wikipedia's manual of style. They are neutral, easy to understand. The material is not biased and references are reliable, relevant to the article. All the view points are presentable and are very distinct.

Mahnoorazfar (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)mahnoorazfar[reply]

The lead section gives a great overview of the triple test score. Maybe a little more information needs to be added to show how the article will be flowing in terms of structure such as including more information on background from costs to comparison to other tests, etc. Just a little more information. The structure seems good, but I was a little lost on the transition from one section to another. I am wondering if each section can be introduced and how it relates to the overall article or the previous section. I believe the coverage is fair. I think there is a lot more focus on the first few sections rather than the last two sections. I believe there is not enough information mentioned in the last two sections. Maybe add more details to those sections and explain more between the mTTS and the BI-RAD compared to the TTS. The content is neutral with no bias or over-exaggeration. I did not see words such as most, often, best, least, or opinions. The resources are reliable, but I have noticed that the majority are not from secondary sources such as reviews, systemic reviews, meta-analysis, etc which would have increased the credibility of the article. For example, I have noticed a greater number of the resources are from primary studies such as from primary clinical studies. Also, I have noticed that some of the references do not have appropriate formatting such as reference one where it has no link/access, dates, etc.

Overall, I believe the group did a great job in organizing the article. Based on their goals that they mentioned in the talk page, I see that they met their goals. They added the new sections that wanted to be added with appropriate information and citations. For example, one of their goals was to add a section of the diagnostics of fine-needle aspiration biopsy for breast masses which they included in the article and is a great majority in their article.

The group has substantial references that verify the points they made in the article. I have noticed that a great number of sources are not from secondary sources. From opening them and looking at them, it seems that they are from primary clinical studies. Reference 1 needs fixing as there is no way to access it. In terms of accessibility, the ones from PubMed all seem to be free and easily accessible while the others from Journals are not easily accessible. Those Journals need payments or access through institutions. I understand that it can be hard to get enough secondary references so try to add secondary resources as much as possible especially in the beginning of the article. NagatAlrubati (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NagatAlrubati,

We are discussing better ways to utilize non-primary sources to cite our work. We agree that using secondary sources is better and more reliable than primary sources, but since this is a clinical diagnostic tool that is no longer really used today, it's hard to find secondary sources that pursue the Triple Test Score.

Also we have adjusted Reference 1 and the others that you were referring to were duplicates. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Best,

Pharmer1934 Pharmer1934 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a shorter rewrite as my original peer review was deleted upon clicking "Publish". The lead of the article is delivered in a clear, brief, and unbiased manner. It gives an ideal overview of the triple test score, and uses language that is straight to the point. The flow and organization of the article is conducive toward an accessible reading experience, allowing one to understand even if they have zero prior knowledge of the triple test score. If the group decides to keep history separated as its own section, however, I recommend that they add more information to this section; at least a reference or two. Otherwise, it would be more ideal to add the historical information to a different section of the article, or to the end of the Lead.

The group's linguistics do support diversity, equity and inclusion, particularly via their delivery of information in an objective, unbiased manner. There is very little filler phrases and words, thus there is generally not much in this article for the reader to interpret other than the direct purpose, use, and explanation of the triple test score. Demographics are seldom mentioned unless it is relating to the origin and context of research. I would suggest mentioning the role of the triple test score in equitable healthcare, if any. The group mentioned that cost in attaining this score is much lower, thus allowing the reader to interpret this process as affordable and accessible despite socioeconomic status. However, other aspects of accessibility should be addressed as well, if credible secondary sources can be found on this subject -- aspects regarding factors such as geography, genotyping, complications with reproductive hazards/diseases, etc. Overall, the group performed well in curating an educational, easy to understand resource regarding the triple test score.

FutureHealthcare (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have combined the previous "History" section with the end of the Lead due to difficulty with finding more information. We appreciate your suggestions for "mentioning the role of [TTS] in equitable healthcare" and "[addressing] other aspects of accessibility...such as geography, genotyping, complications with reproductive hazards/diseases", but unfortunately, we could not find any information pertinent to these topics. As previously mentioned, it's difficult to find sources on a diagnostic tool that is no longer used today, let alone secondary sources. PiggyTofu (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Review

Pharmer1934 - Reviewed #1-8. Changes made:

1 - taken out as it was quoting a lecture from university that no one could verify.

3 - Dates Published: 28 August 2008

5- Dates Published: April 24–28, 2002.

6- Dates Published: August 29, 2022

7- Deleted, same source as 2

8- Dates Published: August 1, 2022 Pharmer1934 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mktthind13 - Reviewed #9-13

Removed reference 26 because it was a duplicate of reference 11 For reference 12: originally it was November 2023 but I wound the full date to be November 9th 2020 Mktthind13 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PiggyTofu - Reviewed #14-19. Changes made:

14 - deleted source since duplicate with 10

15 - added new journal source for 15, previous source was from appointment website PiggyTofu (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3768091. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22277164/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]