Talk:Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea

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): M. Frank, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Mmuskat, Mbanawis. Peer reviewers: Gdelosreyes1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group 21 proposed edits

- Edit to improve writing style and tone
- Add to the diagnosis and treatment sections of the article
- Cite more sources for diagnosis and treatment
- Add a definition and epidemiology section to the article
Mbanawis (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC) - Possible references:
Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Diagnosis and Management https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/1101/p582.html
Epidemiology of central sleep apnoea in heart failure https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(16)30359-X/fulltext
Dyspnea, Orthopnea, and Paroxysmal Nocturnal Dyspnea https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK213/
Mmuskat (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Our group has reviewed all the references- both added by us and added by others, and verified that none were from predatory journals. There were a few journals I was unsure about, like the South African Medical Journal and Taylor & Francis Online. However, after doing some research, I was able to conclude they these were not predatory journals
Mmuskat (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Our group has reviewed and corrected any reference formatting issues, and all references are now correct as listed.M. Frank, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Our group has consolidated all duplicate references, 3 and 8 were combined to reference 3, and 5 and 6 were combined to reference 5. Mbanawis (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Group 11 Peer Reviews

Part 1

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

Yes, the structure and sections of the article are organized well and presented in a logical/chronological order. In addition, the article is presented in lay language which makes it easy to read and understand. Furthermore, the article is presented with neutral tone which will not persuade the reader into a specific idea or position.

Yes, the lead sections are easy to follow through. The structure of the article is clear and I appreciate that the group added sections such as diagnosis, mechanism, treatment, etc, which are all key sections to include. As far as coverage, if more data is needed in this article, a recommendation is to clarify further the distinction between PND from typical dyspnea because the differences listed were somewhat unclear under the “Differential Diagnoses’ section. Gdelosreyes1 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the group did an excellent job citing credible sources and presenting their findings in a way that was easily digestible to the reader. The topic was well organized and had a logical flow. The authors did a good job at staying neutral and presenting facts. Eleon.ucsf (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”. The article has lead sections which are well organized in a sensible order making it easy for readers to follow and understand the contents. It is concise and includes a table of content that provides a quick overview of the article. V.Kalsi, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvementsErickim206 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the group added a number or additional citations to improve the strength and credibility of their article. In addition, they also achieved their goal of adding a diagnosis and treatment section to their article with credible secondary sources.Erickim206 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the group has achieved its overall goal for improvement. The original article prior to the new edits were missing general information and I believe that the group was able to include and address the important sections and give the key information needed to have a good level of understanding of the topic.

- Edit to improve writing style and tone (YES)

- Add to the diagnosis and treatment sections of the article (YES)

- Cite more sources for diagnosis and treatment (YES)

- Add a definition and epidemiology section to the article (Definition section?).

Gdelosreyes1 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the group added an abundant amount of information to the article regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment as well as ejection fraction. They also provided a clear population in which PND effects the most. They were able to edit the article very well, and improve the diction and tone of the overall article. Eleon.ucsf (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The group’s goal was to add sections such as diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology along with more citations. The edits were well structured, appropriately cited with reliable sources, and had a neutral point of view. I do believe that the group was able to achieve its overall goals for improvement.V.Kalsi, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 2

1. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, all the citations this group added are freely available secondary sources. Source 4, a secondary review article, sheds lights on the differential diagnosis of acute dyspnea and chronic dyspnea. Source 5 is a from a Clinical Methods textbook which helps explain the different mechanisms that can cause dyspnea. Furthermore, the group also cited a South African medical journal to add a section about risk factors contributing to dyspnea. Erickim206 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? This article has a neutral point of view. For example, when talking about the treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, the author lists various available treatment options and does not suggest one treatment option is better over another. The content provided in the each section is informative and cited with the appropriate sources.V.Kalsi, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with wikipedias manual of style? Yes, their tone was clear and concise. They were able to proved a lot of information without utilization of biased sources or sounding biased towards any type of diagnosis or treatment. Although, I do believe there are some sections that require more medical literacy than the average person would have. For example, in the mechanism section when they refer to the "adrenergic effect" not many people will understand what that is. However, majority the article is very easy to follow. Additionally, they cited their sources well and in the proper manner and they hyperlinked various words in the article to aid viewers/readers to further understand the topic at hand. Eleon.ucsf (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

4. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (Explain).

For the most part, the edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. The language used throughout was objectively written and professional. However, I do recommend avoiding use of the word “patient” by replacing it with a more general term. I also liked that there was a special populations section. I recommend expanding on that section if data is available, but do take extra care to ensure that certain groups are not targeted specifically. Overall, language does not discriminate against any ethnicity or demographic. Gdelosreyes1 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)