Talk:Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anoopmuniyappa, NeilSZhang. Peer reviewers: Yoursfrankly, Jjanssen275.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy

Hello Wikipedians,

We are Anoop and Neil, two students in the UCSF Wikiproject Medicine Elective who plan to edit and improve this article.

Broadly, we hope to accomplish the following goals:

1. Expand tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy wiki from current stub to include relevant sections consistent with Wikipedia Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.
2. Update references using relevant review articles and other secondary literature.
3. Utilize Acrolinx report to enhance readability and accessibility to readers.

Neil will focus on improving/adding the following sections:

• LEAD (Introduction)

I will edit the lead to reflect the additional sections we plan to add, in a manner consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Lead Section.

• INFO BOX

I will add to the Info Box to make it more comprehensive.

• EPIDEMIOLOGY

I will discuss epidemiological trends associated with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

• SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

I will discuss the signs and symptoms that a patient with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy may experience.

Anoop will focus on improving/adding the following sections:

• DIAGNOSIS

I will discuss the definition of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and common medical tests involved in its diagnosis.

• TREATMENT

I will discuss different modalities for treatment of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

• PROGNOSIS

I will discuss the prognosis of patients who are diagnosed with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

NeilSZhang (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Student review edit suggestions

Hello! I reviewed the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis sections for the UCSF Wikipedia Elective. My thoughts - Overall very well-researched with great secondary sources cited throughout. Impressive growth in the page with detailed information added. Clearly delineated sections with appropriate content. Great work! This page has seen a vast improvement. Clearly a lot of work and time was put into this page :). Some suggestions below, first a general thought, then more specific suggestions (take them or leave them, up to you!).

- consider your audience. As is, these sections read more as advice for a physician. It may be helpful to re-word some of the sentences to be more general and aimed more towards educating a layperson about how the condition is diagnosed and treated.

Diagnosis section: First paragraph: - first sentence may be better suited to s/sx? I would advocate for starting the paragraph with the second sentence. - third sentence —> is this assuming that TIC would normally occur in people with structural heart disease? don’t know if you need this sentence, I don’t know if that will be a naturally made assumption for a layperson. Or could say something like, “Unlike some other causes of cardiomyopathy, TIC can occur in patients regardless of whether or not they have structural heart disease” or something like that. - consider flipping third and fourth sentence - Great last sentence! - First paragraph, last word (tachyarrhythmia) - consider defining or hyperlinking. Second paragraph - Great list of diagnostic modalities. Consider bulleting for easier readability. Third para - could consider simplifying language (ie. Cardiac rhythm monitoring can be used to diagnose a tacharrhythmia. This is often accomplished with an EKG. In order to characterize the frequency of the tacharrhythmia, continuous rhythm monitors such as a Holter monitor can be used.) - add tacharrhythmia after “to determine if one …” for readability Fourth para - consider simplifying language and defining terms: myocardial ischemia, idiopathy dilated cardiomyopathy Fifth para - Great paragraph! short, clear sentences, great active voice

Treatment: First para: - define normal sinus rhythm (or could say ‘normal heart rate’ and ‘normal heart rhythm’) - could consider defining some terms listed in last sentence Second para: - Great paragraph with short sentences! - define myocardial dysfunction Third para: - define neurohormonal blockade or could take that part out

Prognosis: - define LVEF or write it out - may be helpful to talk about cardiac remodeling earlier in the article (ie. a subsection of signs and symptoms could be complications and could talk about/define cardiac remodeling and that is may or may not be permanent)

Hope this is helpful! Let me know if you have any questions about my suggestions :). This page looks amazing and is quite impressive. Great work, guys. Jjanssen275 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello TIC team! I peer-reviewed the Lead, causes, epidemiology portions of the page. Strong work from both of you gentlemen. Please observe the following feedback points written from a perspective of a fourth year medical student:

- Add Echocardiogram Video or Illustrated Diagram comparing normal vs abnormal ejection fraction of the heart. You can use it to replace the pre-existing lead photograph, unless you really the old version :) - You talked about the associations between SVT, AFIB, etc. and TIC. Are there theories on the pathogenesis of TIC, resulting from these arrythmias? - Lead paragraph, add one sentence on why the average reader should care about TIC? Is it a common differential in deciding the etiology of CHF? Medically fascinating? - The EKG strip is an excellent addition to the site. It complements the suggestion of the link between Atrial arrhythmia and TIC - It might be interesting for the reader to learn about some of the discoverers of this condition and the circumstances by which they linked tachycardia and cardiomyopathy - Along the same vein, you can add a few historical portraits of these physicians to bolster the lack of visual imagery of the page. - Otherwise the page looks great! It's readable for me and honestly the topic is probably at a deep and specific enough level to warrant its current levels of sophistication. Aka. the only people who would be interested in reading it are medical professionals and patients with the condition. Yoursfrankly (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)yoursfrankly (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)