User talk:Anderclamusc/sandbox

sandbox addition

Adding new reference to this page

The prioritized section: Management. Added new lead into the section which was previously sparse. Two citations were in that new lead paragraph. Also rearranged the subsections from greatest importance to least important. Began editing the respiratory care subsection in sandbox. Probably half of the way done with it's revision. will insert the edited version into the article page tomorrow.Anderclamusc (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Finished the Respiratory Care subsection edit on article page.Anderclamusc (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges: Trying to word what I wanted to introduce and input that every patient will not need the same clinical management despite having the same disease or severity of the disease. Also, without being too technical. Synthesizing many review articles to make a better subsection than already exists. Anderclamusc (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the nutrition subsection and integrated the edit with the existing text. Also made some small edits to the Respiratory Care subsection.Anderclamusc (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the Ortho subsection of Management section. Most of information comes from the expert cureSMA review panel from the leading researchers in the field in the US.Anderclamusc (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each student will summarize their progress on their Work Plan. Please describe strategies for finalizing your article edits.

I have added text to all sections that were initially presented in my plan with the exception of adding a section on patient resources which was not wanted by other editors. My final edits include adding citations to the opening section which seem to be paraphrased from an SMA book by multiple authors with expertise in their respective sections. If I can find any more up to date prognosis data, I will try to include that but have not found a review source. Also, via feedback from peer review, initiate changes where appropriate.Anderclamusc (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rearranged sections "causes" before "signs and symptoms" as suggested by peer reviewAnderclamusc (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added some plain language to intro, updated references where they were lacking, added some text to newborn screening. Only thing I really want to do is update prognosis section with data from book published in 2017.Anderclamusc (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

===Peer Review===

Hi Anderclamusc! I have gone over this article and am submitting to you a peer evaluation as part of a WikiEd course. You have clearly chosen a topic of high complexity with many viewpoints that continue to evolve over time as we learn more about this disease. The content and organization you have contributed has undoubtedly improved the clarity and overall relevance to the topic at hand. Despite there being a multitude of tangents an editor could devote space to, you have excelled at maintaining the momentum of the article. The article could continue to benefit by modifying the language so that it becomes even easier for the lay-reader to understand. For example the introduction contains words that I know my dear mother would not understand. Words such as eukaryotic, atrophy, proximal, autosomal recessive, etc. This continues throughout the rest of the article. Due to the complexity combined with the watchfulness of other WP edititors, it may prove difficult to alter it from it’s present verbage. Some aspects of the article that I found mildly distracting wasin the organization of the article headings. I feel that describing “causes” followed by “signs and symptoms” would help the article flow more logically. In addition, “management and treatment” could potentially be combined under one heading. Overalll the article reads in a balanced and neutral tone. The citations throughout make great use of current reviews and guidelines. There remains a handful of facts that could be better supported by including references or citations. Overall most of the evidence can be traced to the past 5-7 years however there remain a handful of references that could stand to be updated. Again, wonderful job and thank you so much for your effort in improving this article for many to come! Sincerely, Averstumor (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points Averstumor. Good idea, I was looking at the intro and thinking the same thing but did not want to step on too many toes and bite off more than I could chew. I will try my best to edit the intro like you suggested. I will incorporate an explanation in parentheses in some cases and rewrite parts so that an individuals first impression is more clear without explinations to every tenth word. I know individuals who their child received the diagnosis of SMA and came to this article and found it useless. And one individual had a PhD in a field of medicine.

In regards to the order of the sections you mentioned. I agree, it seems more logical the way you suggested.

I thought about combining the management and treatment sections. From my perspective I think there is overlap in the management and treatment of SMA. So that proactive management of respiratory care or nutrition is the treatment for the progression of the disease to complications where definitive treatment is the standard of care(exceptions of course). Like the analogy, a good defense is a great offence. I thought I would be repeating the same information over and over unless I put in there "see xyzadv subsection" over and over. Since each individual with SMA, even the same type will not have the same disease manifestations or severity(exceptions of course). I thought treatment had its place and I was really to trying hone in on "proactive management" as the best the best way to increase quality of life and life expactancy for most most individuals. And keep treatment as something to turn to when proactive management was not enough or when morbidity was bad. I just do not think the language was neutral enough for me to say. Seems to be such a fine line, because most of the leading authorities in the US use and promote the use of proactive management, pharm and new better technology as the best way to increase quality of life and life expectancy(exceptions of course). I could be wrong about proactive management being opinionated and/or persuasive.

I agree that some references could be updated. However, an extensive book on everything SMA was just published in 2017, which referenced most of the original sources in the article. I think you are right, this was a challenging article because of so much individual variability minus the classic hypotonia, etc. in the more severe types. I will try and hit on some of them but really wanted to focus on the prognosis sources. I believe that will have the most impact on a parent who turns to this article with a newly diagnosed child with SMA and sees in black in white that their child will most likely die within "X" years when that has been changing for the better due to the before mentioned.2602:30A:2CD9:7640:140E:1583:666A:3DF7 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Anderclamusc (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Averstumor, I have edited some of the into to make it more understandable to the general population. updated some of the references. Rearranged he 2 sections you mentioned. Touched a little bit on newborn screening and added the proponent side since it is still controversial. Anderclamusc (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Averstumor, Polished up my final edits to the article and added some information to the prognosis section.Anderclamusc (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Anderclamusc (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Anderclamusc (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]