Talk:Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sethbrautigam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

The whole entry is very polysyllabic. I have broken the first sentence with a clarification in lay language. People coming to this page will be anxious parents-to-be more often than specialists, and they deserve to find something they can understand. The reference to stillbirth is from recent close family experience, but doubtless there are more encyclopaedic citations available. --Hugh7 (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This can't be serious...

"We reviewed the efficacy of Quintero staging to predict survival rate in TTTS treated with laser therapy." Who is "we"? The wikipedia community collectively? Or is it possible that this was copy-pasted from a journal? A quick google search will give you the answer. :P

Commment

I think my sister and I are a result of twin to twin transfusion. We are almost 29 years old.

Historical examples

The painting and description of one twin being "red" brings up the question of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 25. Esau is described as being red and hairy, and grows into a robust man whereas Jacob is quieter and remains in his tents. Lmonteros (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the opening sentence could actually mention what the syndrome is... rather than hint at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.42.102 (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"TTTS is believed to affect roughly 1 in 1000 pregnancies."

What does it mean? TTTS happens once in 1000 twin pregnancies? Or once in 1000 pregnancies of all types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.201.118 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The drawing

Is this right?

Doesn't this drawing show two placentas? Tempshill (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I had always "imagined" the placenta as being connected, but I'll go ahead and revise the graphic so it shows that. I'll try to get to it soon. Thanks. Kevin Dufendach (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: Updated on 8 August 2009. Kevin Dufendach (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Resolved?? Still shows two placentas with a clear lambda sign indication DI-DI twins. Horus (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

failed fetoscopy?

I'm just curious how many times this is known to happen. when i was pregnant with my twins, they had TTTS and we did the lazer surgery. the doctor later told me the surgery hadn't worked and he was eager to do it again, as he'd never had this happen. i told him i didn't want to be his Guenna pig and we did the expectant management. the twins were born alive and mostly healthy(the big twin had an unrelated heart problem). but how often does the surgery actually fail? Stregamama (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Understanding Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome Video Series (10 Part Video)

Source: The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

GO TO:[1]

http://www.chop.edu/video/twin-twin-transfusion/home.html?item=0

1. What is Twin-twin Transfusion Syndrome?

2. 'Like a Fingerprint'

3. Diagnosis and Decisions

4. Treatment Option: Amnioreduction

5. Treatment Option: Microseptostomy

6. Treatment Option: Fetoscopic Laser Surgery

7. Difficult Choices

8. The Importance of Monitoring

9. Support When a Family Needs it Most

10. A Future of Hope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.2.86 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vanity press "further reading"

This edit restores two vanity press books to the "Further reading" section. The editor is question, @Hero2316:, seems to have a close connection to at least one of the authors, as indicated by their first three edits with an account and all of their edits prior to creating an account.[2][3][4][5] When I first removed the two books, they asked about it on my talk page, but seem to have ignored my response.[6]

Basically, anyone with a bit of money and a need to see what they've written "published" can have a vanity press print up as many copies as they would like to store in their garage. That willingness to drop some cash does not in any way make them an authoritative or reliable source.

Any other comments before I remove them again? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion, I am removing them again. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD I HAVE BEEN RESPONDING. I was sending you messages. What Cash did I ever drop? I haven't spent anything to publish forever lined. the other book was a self published. But Forever Linked was never paid to be published. the Published paid for it, and all of the proceeds has gone to the 2 main charites, The TTTS Foundation and Fetal Health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero2316 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no response to my comment on your talk page five days ago responding to your claim to not have a conflict of interest.

"Philatory Ink", your publisher, seems to have a very thin publication history: one book (yours).[7] They say they are the non-fiction imprint of Reliquary Press. Their catalog lists 10 books by nine authors. Whether or not you would qualify them as vanity press is rather beside the point, as is the question of who is receiving money for sales on the book. The main question here is whether or not the book is a reliable source for this topic. IMO, an otherwise unpublished author writing for a highly questionable publisher (i.e. not a major academic publisher) does not come close to the requirements outlined at Wikipedia:Medrs#Books.

CRC Press is a division of Informa, so I (for one) accept Quintero's book without question. Skupski is published through JP Medical. I'm not familiar with them or Jaypee Brothers, but they have some history and trumpet a BMA textbook award on their site. I accept them, but would have trouble arguing with someone with objections. Smith's pay-to-publish book fails Wikipedia:Medrs#Books without question. Your personal book, after "200+" rejections, was published by the tiniest publisher I can imagine through a personal connection.[8] I do not this as meeting Wikipedia:Medrs#Books. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Much of this entry appears to be copied verbatim

from here: http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2812%2901980-1/fulltext 204.88.251.20 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I missed one of the copyright violations from that time. This edit, per WP:DCV, reverts to the 07:40, March 12, 2014‎ version by Gorthian (identical to the 05:31, March 8, 2014‎ by me), the last version prior to the copyright violation by 209.11.191.1. This removes all edits by 209.11.191.1, anything that might remain from Twinstrumentality and a bunch of edits since. Anyone willing to hunt down anything of value in there, have at it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410123546/http://health.ucsd.edu/women/child/prenatal/perinatal/fetalsurgery/ttts/Pages/stages.aspx to http://health.ucsd.edu/women/child/prenatal/perinatal/fetalsurgery/ttts/Pages/stages.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109060111/http://www.texaschildrens.org/CareCenters/FetalSurgery/contempobgynarticle.pdf to http://texaschildrens.org/carecenters/fetalsurgery/contempobgynarticle.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)