Talk:Percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

.

Assignment

I will be working on this page in an attempt to expand the information on this subject for a class assignment. Ecapelle (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mjurgens369

• The lead section could use additional citations.
  • Cited. Ecapelle (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• There was at least one instance of repeated wikilinks that I saw, like linking to fetoscopy twice in the article. Words like "miscarriage" are linked later in the article even when they appear earlier on, so you might want to consider changing that. Also, a few other phrases like cesarean section might deserve a link.
  • Done Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Risks section could use a source, or you could just combined this section with procedure since you list a lot of the risks there.
  • Combined with procedure at the end. Ecapelle (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I had trouble clarifying the citation used after "As an example, in the United States fetal viability typically occurs at about 24 weeks of gestation, and in Portugal it is at about 25 weeks." These statistics might be somewhere on the site, but the link in citations does not go directly to a page where they are.

• In paragraph 2 under procedure, you might want to consider adding a bit about the risk of sampling in anterior position if you want to put in the risks for the posterior position.
  • there isn't any specific risk for sampling in the anterior position that is different from the general risks of the procedure which are already mentioned. This is why I did not mention risks for the anterior position specifically. Akhan50699 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Paragraph 5 under procedure could use a citation.
  • this was a paragraph previously added from a different user. I've deleted it because much of the information included was redundant. Akhan50699 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• The sentence "PUBS has largely replaced fetoscopy, which has a much higher rate of miscarriage." in paragraph 6 under procedure could be taken out because you talk about it earlier in the article.
  • Deleted. Ecapelle (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• One sentence paragraph at the end of procedure could be combined with another section.
  • Added to lead section. Ecapelle (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of paragraph 2 or indications and contraindications is a little confusing; you say that the test shouldn't be done to prevent the fetus from getting HIV, but you also say that it should be done to see if the fetus has HIV.
  • I believe I cleared it up; thanks! Ecapelle (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

*The single umbilical artery section is informative, but it has quite a bit of information that isn't as relevant to PUBS.  You might want to consider making this a smaller part of procedure or risks.

• • Noted. Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjurgens369 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nvarade

• intro is good, nice and concise, I don't think there is a need to add too much more information
  • Alright. Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• usually many high end biology vocabulary terms are linked, just in case viewers who are unfamiliar with a word can easily click on them to get a definition
  • Added wikilinks. Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• can intrahepatic vein be highlighted?
  • No, there is no associated Wikipedia article. Ecapelle (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• citations on paragraph 5
  • Repetitive comment. Already addressed by Anam. Ecapelle (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• I do not want to be repetative, Mjurgens369 covered many of the items I was looking at.
  • Okay. Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarade (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User: Jfriend2

• first reference in lead should be placed at end of sentence
  • Done. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• in the lead, second sentence, take the pipe away from the wikilink for CVS, to avoid using abbreviations not commonly known
  • Deleted. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• try adding wikilinks to the History section: prenatal test, chromosomal abnormalities, miscarriage
  • I couldn't find those exact words in the history section, but I added some. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Procedure and associated risks first paragraph, link intravenous since it's used multiple times
  • Done.Akhan50699 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Fetuses with single umbilical artery section should be broken up into at least two smaller paragraphs instead of one giant paragraph
  • Moved umbilical cord definition so I left it as one because it's shorter now. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• you have enough information that you might want to consider breaking procedure and associated risks into their own sections
  • Done.Akhan50699 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• define, contraindications. It is not a common word used by general public, you can link to the page, but not in the section header.
  • Finished. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• When reading the article as whole, I thought it was odd that the function of the umbilical cord wasn't defined until the very last section. Not sure the best way to fix, but it was strange when reading.
  • Moved to lead. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jfriend2 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User: Rglastet

• Under the history section, "...Adamsons reported the removal of a uterus in a fetus who had a buildup of fluid and ended up dying..." sounds like they removed the fetus' uterus. Maybe rephrase this sentence so it is a little clearer.
  • Rephrased. Thanks for the suggestion! Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the wikipedia rules for this, but in the history section, source 5 is cited 4 times in a row. It may be less cluttered to cite it once at the end of the sentences from that reference.
  • Combined a sentence to clean it up, but keep the references. I'm concerned about plagiarism if I don't leave it in, but I think it's clean up a little more. Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• In the second to last sentence of the history section, the needle is referred to as a "who" so maybe rearrange the sentence to say something like: "...with a needle and monitored its maneuvers with an ultrasound."
  • Rephrased. Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Alternating between saying PUBS and cordocentesis is slightly confusing. I would recommend sticking to one term throughout the article.
  • Changed cordocentesis to PUBS wherever present. Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Good use of pictures. If possible, a figure of the procedure would be helpful.
  • Couldn't find a procedure picture in Wikimedia Commons.Akhan50699 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Rglastet (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Biolprof

• Can you figure out how to move the male karyotype figure from the middle of the paragraph so it is not split awkwardly?
  • Moved. Ecapelle (talk)
• Now that you have added so much to the risks paragraph, I think it should be a separated from the procedures section again.
  • Done. Akhan50699 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Jfriend2 on adding more wikilinks: fetal, blood, pH, etc…
  • Just added a bunch of wikilinks. Ecapelle (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • added a few more wikilinks to the page in general. Akhan50699 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Has this technique been largely replaced by more recent sequencing of the maternal blood? Just in certain countries? Can you say anything about this?
  • I added some information on this in the History section. Ecapelle (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • there's also a little information in the second paragraph under "associated risks" about an alternate procedure. Akhan50699 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Biolprof (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Biosthmors

I noticed that a 1994 source is being used in the contraindications paragraph to summarize clinical guidelines. That doesn't meet WP:MEDDATE, which asks for recent sources, such as those within the last several years, if possible. Might there be much more recent medical literature available? {{update}} and {{update inline}} could be used within the article to mark these issues if they aren't addressed. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I found some more recent literature on this section. It is difficult because these were not as detailed, and this procedure is not used as frequently with the medical advances of amniocentesis, chorionic villi, etc. Thank you for pointing that out though; I didn't even know about those guidelines. Ecapelle (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Estephe9

• While the procedure of PUBS is well explained, I think that some figures could be beneficial to help make this easier to understand. If not a picture or diagram of the entire procedure, at least an image of some of the different aspects of the procedure (tools, parts of the body involved, etc.). Estephe9 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree! Anam told me she was working on hand drawing a figure to post because there aren't any that are very readily available without copyrights, etc. Check back soon! Ecapelle (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from iamwillthinnes

• Associated Risks section should be Associated risks.
  • Fixed. Ecapelle (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to break up the procedures section? It's a large wall of text. A figure or subsections might be useful.

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)