Talk:Pruritic urticarial papules and plaques of pregnancy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pjanday, R. Park, future ucsf pharm D, Pchua001, Rroehl00. Peer reviewers: Daniel.c.oliveira, CCarlsonn, Vguan1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 23 proposed edits

Add diagnosis section, Add etiology/mechanism section and information, Add SxS, Add information about SxS/information on different skin, Add information about post-partum and mother QoL, Add meta-analyses/systematic reviews for most up-to-date research on PUPPP, Update and review citations/references, Add information to treatment section, RJonesUCSF (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JuneKimUCSF, DDrucker, RJonesUCSF, L.Sanchez UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

does anyone have a jwatch login? there does seem to be some kind of study about fetal dna in pregnancy rashes, but i can't get to it. here is all i can find of the abstract: http://womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/1999/201/8 title: Fetal DNA in Skin Rashes of Pregnant Women Uncleosbert (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to change the article a bit as it claimed that PUPPP never affects the face. It is true that all the sources state that but at least in my case I got the rash on my face as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.234.41 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group 23 proposed edits

Our group's plan is to:

- Add a Signs and Symptoms section with defined characteristics Wikipedia users can refer to along with reputable sources for the information

- To expand upon the Causes and Diagnosis sections, adding references for information clarification

- To simplify terminology already utilized in the article and improve upon the flow of information presented, making it easier to read

Foundations II 2021 Group 8 Peer Review

C.Chung, Future PharmD (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Crystal Chung, August 2, 2021

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello, it was a pleasure to read your article. Here are some of my general comments of appraisal: First, as the reader, I appreciated the definition of "dermatose". I also liked the pictures as well as the signs and symptoms section which helps the reader visualize what is happening. With regards to the causes, there are many causes, so the expansion falls within your group's goal of providing more information there. With regards to making the sentence structures more readable, for the most part, it made sense (see more comments below), and there were appropriate citations to non-primary sources there. Nice job!

Now regarding points for suggested improvement: 1) Some sentences, such as “It presents no long-term risk for either the mother or unborn child despite frequently severe pruritus" need a citation. 2) Some sentences do not make sense either because of technical words or structure. For example, “Women with large fundal measures…", what is a "fundal measure"?. Another example is “From those with PUPPP, it has been seen from a immunohistology..." I do not know if the general reader would understand immunohistology (can you link it to another wiki page?). 3) Some sentences are long and convoluted. How could you simplify for example: "However, more evidence is needed to accurately determine whether or not there are any correlations between PUPPP sufferers based on the sex of the child they are carrying during the pregnancy in which they experienced PUPPP symptoms before definitive associations can be concluded." Or "With this increase in progesterone, it causes there to be an increased level of progesterone receptors present eliciting an immune reaction seen by skin lesions in PUPPP". 4) Some sentences need context. For example, what is Rh-positive in "Additionally, a study from Ghazeeri and al. showed that 89% of patients who underwent conception through in vitro fertilization were Rh-positive"? 5) There are minor grammatical errors, such as "inflammatory mediated" (inflammatory-mediated), "However, most people report experiencing symptoms begin in the final month of pregnancy." 6) What do you think about changing the order of the signs/sx with the causes section? 7) What if you replace the images in the signs/sx so the reader can see them as they read?

Answering the peer-review prompts: 1) The group's edits substantially improve the article. They use citations (i.e. Pruritic Urticarial Papules and Plaques of Pregnancy Occurring Postpartum Treated with Intramuscular Injection of Autologous Whole Blood), use a neutral tone ("suggests", "appears", "although"), have good subheadings that orient the reader (cause, diagnosis, signs, and symptoms), and frame facts in a balanced way. As the reader, I understand much more now about the signs and symptoms section. 2) The goal has achieved their three goals of expanding the causes section, add a new section showing the signs, and make the article readable. 3) This article is written in a neutral point of view. There are no "shoulds", and the information is presented in a way that shows the evolution of facts as new data emerges regarding PUPPP. The article also has no promotional content and does not focus on one particular aspect of this disease. Daniel.c.oliveira (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Peer Review Prompts Part 1:

1) This group did a great job with adding a large amount of new content to the article. It was good to see additional information broken down into subsections to clearly and logically incorporate it all into the pre-existing article. Some content could still be redistributed better to different subsections, for example the content under the very first intro/summary section of the article could be broken up. I think the introduction and summary should be more concise and does not need to mention particular studies. Perhaps even a new body article could be created to address the discrepancy between studies and suspicions. On the other hand, the associations mentioned in the last paragraph did not have a citation. If there are not reputable references, I think that section could be removed.

2) Overall, this group did achieve its overall goals for improvement with new information on diagnosis, etiology, signs and symptoms, and additional references.

Peer Review Prompts Part 2 (#2): The references used were mainly published reviews available on PubMed or books. A few case reports that were available on PubMed were cited as well. All references had an abstract available for readers, without a paid subscription. A few website were also cited, but they were free to access and certified to be compliant with the HONcode, making them reliable resources. A print publication (ie. Journal of midwifery & women's health) was cited using a World Cat link and the actual article or pages in the article was not linked. Medscape was also one of the refences and should be replaced with a more reputable source. C.Chung, Future PharmD (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suggested edits + comments for Bullet #3 on Wikipedia MoS:

Group accomplished listed goals of adding more relevant topics and secondary source citations compared to before!

1) Section organization: Initial summary can be shorter. Topics such as papules/plaques on abdomen and skin distention can maybe go into topics such as signs/symptoms and dermatological cause. Otherwise introducing new material/studies in intro, which can possibly clash with info in relevant topic sections.

2) Maybe add subsections in treatment for each type. Corticosteroid ointments, IM injection of whole blood, antihistamine, and then nonpharmacological treatments--> pine tar, cold showers, iced cloths (citation?)

3) Make sure certain words, that may not be common, can be linked to another article that defines the term (i.e. estradiol, collagen(?), gestations, IgM, primigravida-even though you did define this term in parentheses!).

4) Group added systematic reviews for MoS medicine-related articles. Great!

Vguan1 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The group has done a good job of achieving the listed goals and improving the article. It seems that this article was lacking information prior to the edits made by this group, and it is now much more detailed. The causes and diseases section contains much more information compared to before. I think the organization of the sections make sense, although it could be considered to put signs and symptoms above the causes. I also think that adding the signs and symptoms section was very helpful for the article as many people researching this would be interested in that information specifically. Nice work on the article improvements! As for my suggested edits, I would suggest adding more citations throughout, there is a good amount of information lacking citation. There is also a lot of jargon, so I would consider linking the Wikipedia for terms that people may not know the meaning of (primigravida, fundal, immunofluorescence, etc.).

Do the edits reflect language that support diversity, equity, and inclusion? The edits in general support inclusivity and diversity. However, I may suggest switching out the word “patients” for “people” as it has been mentioned that this term may be offensive to some, and may be seen as dehumanizing. Additionally, the diagnosis section uses a lot of medical jargon. I would suggest explaining some of these terms / linking the terms to their respective Wikipedia pages for reference as people reading the article may not understand all of these terms. CCarlsonn (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)