Talk:Microtia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

UK

UK Support Forum for People affected by Microtia

http://www.microtia.org.uk

External links

The external links policy at Wikipedia specifically bans links to online discussion groups unless the whole article is about that discussion group. Please do not add links to chat groups or local organizations. External links should be "encyclopedic" and "worldwide." You might find it helpful to read the discussion at Talk:Devic's disease to learn more about how these policies are applied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, in what sense is information about places to seek treatment for Microtia not relevant information about Microtia? Are you saying that it's OK to describe the disease but information about sources of treatment is inappropriate? By the way, the second link you removed was to not to a talk group. It was to a group that provides treatment worldwide. 76.24.213.203 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The standards for external links do not merely demand relevancy. Yes, links must be relevant, but they must also be encyclopedic and worldwide. A link to an outfit which provides services in a single city is not really a "worldwide" link, is it? And the link in question doesn't really tell you anything encyclopedic about microtia, does it? As far as I could see, the BabyFace link basically communicates very little information beyond the perfectly obvious: "Surgery is available from surgeons in hospitals."

Links are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and respect the "worldwide audience" that Wikipedia attracts. Another way of looking at this is asking yourself, "How useful is this link to a fourteen-year-old British student who is writing an essay for school?" Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect about what is on the Little Baby Face Foundation website. What it says is that if you can't afford this surgery and you are anywhere in the world, they will pay to bring you to New York, perform the surgery, and fly you home. Some of the people researching Microtia are students doing homework. Some are people actually looking for information about Microtia for real reasons. 76.24.213.203 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the policies?

Did you read the bit that says, "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, they are not the target audience." Or the bit that says a clear sign that you're including inappropriate content is when you "add "helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities"?

I want to be perfectly clear here: I don't make these rules. If the Baby Face link had actual, encyclopedic content about microtia, then it could be listed. But it doesn't, so under the current policies, it goes away. If you don't like the policies, then please go to those committees and convince them to change the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments about external links, request for citation, and article importance

• I think the external links are just fine and very useful for people who have children with this problem. Even though I am in the US, I appreciate the value of this. This can be more global in nature by adding other links for other areas.
• who wrote "this surgery should be performed only by specialists in the technique" and can you provide citations. I agree with this statement but HMOs don't want to pay the extra money for a specialist in this technique. A citation for this could be very helpful.
• I take issue with those who labeled this as low importance. I will remove this designation because this is a very important issue for those who are afflicted with this problem. SoilMan2007 (talk)

Hello, SoilMan. Here are my thoughts on the three issues you raise:

1. No matter how useful you, or I, or any other editor, thinks any given external link might be to real people, the fact is that external links must comply with Wikipedia rules. You can read the relevant most ones at WP:EL, WP:MEDMOS#External links, and WP:MEDMOS#Audience. In the meantime, please remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and that people can use Google or any other internet search engine to find websites that aren't listed here.
2. The "specialists" comment was added recently by an anonymous editor. It may well be unsupported by actual data and just some editor's personal opinion. I have requested references; if none appear after a while, then the statement should be removed. PMID 11465003 suggests that it's at least not an unreasonable opinion to hold, although I don't know whether the article provides any data to support this sentence, or just promotes the personal bias of the authors.
3. The above tag is a project tag. It has nothing to do with how important the condition is to you or any other person. It has to do with where this article falls on the priority list for improvement. More than 13,000 articles have been identified (so far) as being medicine-related and needing support from the WPMED project. It is obviously impossible to improve them all first. Microtia, as a rare condition, is not in the top 50%. It is therefore "low" on the project's priority list. If you want to contest this, then I suggest that you read the project's assessment guidelines first and request a re-assessment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks "whatamidoing" ... I will take your word for it on these issues. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. Kind Regards SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

unilateral hearing loss and school progress

• there are statements about unilaterial hearing loss and odds of repeating grades with out citations. This abstract seems to support that (http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/26) .... it refers to two other papers from the 80's that support this statement. Regards, SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The subject in the photo on this page is my son Gage, shown at 8 months (2005). He's now about to turn 10 (February 2015). During these years he's been tested for auditory nerves in the left side (affirmative) and fitted out with a BAHA (Bone Amplification Hearing Aid) device. At age 3 he was diagnosed autistic (high functioning, with primarily behavioural issues). He has been in special ed from day 1. He does not wear the BAHA device, however. In initial wearings, it was like a switch went off and his reactions to sounds in general became intense, reacting to slight sounds (without the device) with frustration and sometimes physical outbursts. He cannot stand the sound of someone humming, whistling or singing, which may be a combination of hearing and behavioural issues. For most of the time, Gage was fine with his "little ear," not embarrassed and we make no effort to hide it. Only now, for the first time, has he expressed interest in getting an ear canal and artificial ear. Incidentally, his mother was not on any medication during pregnancy (in reference to the Accutane comment). Gage's older brother, now 15, is also high functioning autistic (Asperger's), as am I, as was my father. I thought I'd offer an update. Regards...mulgamutt — Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Spammy?

==== Hearing loss and speech development ====

Bilateral atresia will be detrimental to the child’s language and cognitive development if left unaided. Bilateral aiding is recommended from infancy for cases of bilateral atresia. Studies increasingly stress the importance of early intervention not only for bilateral hearing loss but also for children with unilateral hearing loss.

For children with unilateral atresia, numerous studies report of delayed speech development and frequent problems in school. Social, behavioural and psychological issues are more prevalent compared to children with normal hearing. Adding to this, children with a congenital unilateral hearing loss may show limited binaural benefit (hearing on both sides) when aided later in life – the reason for this may be that the auditory system is not able to draw the full benefit of aiding if development has been compromised in the early years. Problems such as unilateral atresia may warrant a proactive approach with early information to parents about the potential handicap and the available solutions.

Treatment of hearing loss

In order to minimise the impact on language and cognitive development, hearing restoration should have priority over improving cosmetic appearances. Fitting a Baha on a Softband from infancy has been reported in several studies as a successful treatment to normalise speech development.

In bilateral atresia, bilateral aiding is recommended to give the child access to binaural benefits like localisation, binaural summation and improved hearing in noise. In older children, an implanted [Baha] may be necessary to provide the child with sufficient hearing. As a strategy concerning when to implant a child, monitoring the rate of language development can be very useful. It may decrease as the child gets older and speech becomes more advanced. If a decrease in the rate of development is seen, one successful approach describes regular assessments of the child’s speech development and the subsequent implantation of Baha.

For children, where a later surgical reconstruction of the external ear might be possible, a Baha can still be used until the reconstruction is performed, however, the surgeon will need to take this into account when positioning the Baha. If the reconstruction is ultimately successful, it is easy to remove the percutaneous Baha abutment. If the surgery is unsuccessful, the abutment can be replaced and the implant re-activated to restore hearing.

The main benefits of Baha in atresia are:

• From early infancy, Baha provides a safe and efficient solution to restore hearing in both bilateral and unilateral cases.
• Baha yields excellent audiological outcomes in children both at fitting and over time.
• Patients had the highest levels of satisfaction with Baha, when compared against other subgroups using the Glasgow Benefit.
• In unilateral cases Baha can be considered an option to reduce possible developmental and communication difficulties
• When compared to surgical reconstruction, Baha provides a cost-effective, safe and efficient solution with superior audiological results.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

References

World wide

Support for Micorita/Artresia The Ear community-http://earcommunity.com/ a group for Teens and Adults with microtia (YES parents and younger kids are welcome) teens and adults with Microtia http://microtiaadults.weebly.com/where-in-the-world.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleear (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 2C Goals

Hello everyone, our group consists of four second-year pharmacy students and for the next two weeks we will be working on editing this article. My goals for this article are to:

• Edit the diagnosis section by researching for journal articles with clinical trials on updated diagnosis for microtia
• Explore the four grades of microtia and update them with citations
• Add a new section that explores the unknown cause of microtia and some risk factors Rgonzalezrios (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please be more specific and sign the post, thanks. Health policy (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer-review:

The edits improve the article. The edits are easy to understand, organized in a clear way, and written in neutral tone.Clphan (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The group achieved their overall goals: they expanded on the diagnosis section and added a new section with information about risk factors and causes (there is still limited information, but this may be due to lack of updated studies with more information on diagnosis and causes/risk factors).Clphan (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, all of the edits reflect a neutral, objective point of view. Lauren.chen (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(2) Yes, the cited source is freely available, however, all of the edits can be attributed to only 1 source, which could lend to issues of single view points/perspectives.Clphan (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(4) No, edits were properly cited and correctly paraphrased with no clear evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Kelventran (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Unilateral Aural Atresia

Aural atresia redirects to this article. The draft is probably a good opportunity to discuss how to best organize coverage in this area. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)