Talk:Uterotonic

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): M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D, OSandoval Future UCSF PharmD, WilsonVuongUCSFPharmDStud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 32 Proposed Edits

I propose to add:

• citations for the information already stated
• physiology of uterine contractions and importance of oxytocin
• Information on why medical induction of contractions is necessary and why postpartum hemorrhage is treated and how it occurs
• background information on the listed agents including (potentially including indications, MOA, brands, formulations, doses, etc.)
• organization of information into a more cohesive flow (grouping by agent class)

M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this. Please include your exact edits and the sources that you plan to add to the article on the talk page before editing. Be sure to follow WP:MEDRS for all sources added and if you are re-organizing the article use the medical manual of style (WP:MEDMOS for headings, sub-headings, and their order for your particular article type. Thank you for helping to improve the article! JenOttawa (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose to add adjustments/changes to the subsection "Analogs of Oxytocin"

• Quick surface information regarding the role of oxytocin in labor under Types of Uterotonics.
• Information: The extensive modification of the OT molecule that has resulted in analogs such as atosiban and carbetocin.
• Propose: Removal of tocolytic section, theme of article focused on drugs inducing labor/uterine contractions. Can leave a small blurb regarding some analogs may have an antagonistic effect vs agonistic effect of uterotonics. Move the Analogs section above the Prostaglandin section. Removal of other drug mentions in the article that are oxytocin analogs but have no approved uterotonic applications.
• Brief information for each of the analogs. Information includes role in labor-management, countries approved for use, date approved, efficacy, and any significant adverse effects. *Note: Will avoid duplicating too much information about the analogs that could found on their own pages.
• WHO Recommended Uterotonic Drugs to Focus On (PPH Treatment): Oxytocin, Carbetocin, Ergometrine, Misoprostol.
• WHO Recommended Uterotonic Drugs to Focus On (Labor Induction): Oxytocin, Misoprostol

Welcome to feedback, thank you.

WilsonVuongUCSFPharmDStud (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Prostaglandins subsection:

• Overview of the mechanism of action of prostaglandins and its role in labor induction.
• Including more information on each of the prostaglandin types, providing necessary links to their respective articles.
• Reorganizing the subsection for coherency and avoiding duplicate information.

OSandoval Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to add this edit to the introductory section as a closing paragraph before the information about the drugs:

• "Labor and delivery is a sequential process that results in the birth of a fetus and placenta. It is dependent on maternal and fetal chemical signals to stimulate muscles in the uterus to contract and relax. Of such signals include prostaglandins and oxytocin. Uterotonics can be utilized these chemical pathways in order to medically stimulate contractions in labor induction or to treat postpartum hemorrhage."

Additionally proposing

• Additional information as to how uterotonics are used to treat postpartum hemorrhage
• Potential organization flow for drugs: oxytocin → oxytocin analogs → indirect oxytocinergic → prostaglandins → tocolytics (if choose to include) → parsley

M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Peer Review from Group 31

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The edits from group 32 greatly improve the article. This article had very little meaningful content to begin with, and it is evident this group added substantial information to the page. The background information provided in the introduction is helpful to put the subsequent sections into perspective. Each section is well organized with clear headings describing each subsection. The information provided is objective and does not seem to point readers towards a particular point of view. While most sections provide a wealth of information, the last two subsections do not provide much meaningful content and could benefit from elaboration by the team.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

This group did achieve its goals for improvement by adding/editing information to existing sections. Each team member outlined a plan, which seems to have been closely followed. However, in the plan it mentioned editing or eliminating sections that do not fit the definition of uterotonic presented in the introduction, and it seems this plan was not fully enacted.

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Overall, the article follows the manual of style, but some improvements can be made. In some sections, the writing style is very technical and may be difficult for a general reader to understand. Also, since this article is very heavy on presenting drug information, following the outline for drug headings listed in the manual may make the information easier to read and digest. Following this outline could also help keep formatting consistent between drugs and drug classes. Vomori (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the group's edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework?"

The article has all the important information about uterotonics explained clearly in a manner that is easy to read and understand by the general public. The writers incorporated quality information in the article, such as the use for these pharmacological agents and a summary of the various types of drugs that fall within this class. The article gives significant and objective background information on the various agent. Some comments/recommendations - The Ergot Alkaloids section is a little dense with pharmacology terminology. I'm not sure how beneficial the drugs' duration of action is in this case. - Efficacy for the use of parsley could be stated, as well as the other potential benefits of using parsley in place/in addition to a pharmacologic.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Comparing the group's proposed edits to the edits actually made, most if not all of the edits were made. Authors incorporated the basic overview of the various types of agents and heavily elaborated on the physiology of contractions and labor induction.

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify....

The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view as there is no indication of the writers' views on the use or efficacy of uterotonics in treating labor induction and postpartum hemorrhage. The article makes no biased claims nor states preferences for the listed pharmacologic agents.

Lreyess (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The groups edits significantly improved the articles quality. The structure of the article was organized and easy to follow. The background information was easy to understand for someone who is not familiar with the topic. It was helpful to have background information on the class of drugs, and also brief summary of postpartum hemorrhage/labor induction. Additionally, the group clearly laid out each type of uterotonic and described the mechanism of action and its relevant use in labor inductions/PPH. Each section provided detailed information that provided extensive background on each type of drug.

Some improvements I would suggest: A small error I noticed was that the information regarding parsley was not cited. This section about parsley also seems fairly minimal (which could be due to lack of research) but it could be helpful to explain why researchers think parsley may have a uterotonic effect (if that data exists). Adding more information to the last two sections or somehow combining the sections (perhaps into an “other” category) would help make the article look more balanced. Something to consider would also be to only include examples of drugs that relate specifically to PPH and labor induction. For example, you briefly described alprostadil but mentioned it was not indicated for PPH and labor induction. Lastly, I think it would be helpful to add a separate sub header under each of the types of drugs that describes the adverse effects of those drugs/rates in which they occur. Breaking up the information into smaller sections like that might make it easier for the reader to follow.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. The group was able to address nearly every point that was listed on their talk page. They added brief information about the drug analogs and improved the organization of the article by adding each drug type as a header. They briefly discussed taking out the analogs of drugs that are not approved for use in labor induction/PPH but they

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... The group used secondary sources that I was able to freely access via the library website. Jparizher (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)