Talk:Neonatal withdrawal

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tlflores, Fengjoa, J-Feria, UCSF Class of 2026, Fenriquez726 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Alaynadornton, Jelizarragaoregel, Aedirimuni, AmalEgeh.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Foundations 2: Proposed Edits

Review data used in the current article and check on any updates needed based off most recent literature. Provide updates on epidemiology of NAS, prevalence of opiate use in pregnancy, and prevalence of side effects. Include current guidelines for treatment and testing (examples including SOGC 2023, AAP 2020, etc). Explains details on the pathophysiology of Opioid exposure specific NAS. Include the differences between the substances that cause NAS. Include recommended dosing per guidelines and life expectancy data of infants with NAS. Review the "Signs and Symptoms" section and update as necessary to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Review any medical jargon in the article and explain in lay language. Review and implement inclusive language. J-Feria, UCSF Class of 2026 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Rollback due to copyright violations

Unfortunately, it seems based on this copyvio report, I'm going to have to roll back to a version from 2017.

@Tlflores, you can find your contribution in /Temp.⸺RandomStaplers 02:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2024, Peer Reviews from Group Overmedication

Person A peer Review:

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review Guiding framework? Yes, the group has improved the article; they have cited reliable research/science-based sources and provided evidence for all claims/statements made; the content is written in a neutral, informative tone.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, they have significantly improved their epidemiology sections and provided up-to-date, reliable stats about NAS; they also explained the mechanism, signs, and symptoms of NAS in layman's terms. 

3A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the article demonstrates a neutral point of view; the information is presented in a neutral tone and nonpersuasive language. The statements are based on evidence from reliable literature. 

Person B Peer Review Response:

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes. The group has included up-to-date information regarding the topic, including guidelines and updated definitions. They have also provided a very cohesive format for the information, with each section highlighting its importance to the overall topic.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes. Some goals outlined in the plan were providing more evidence and prevalence for opiate use in pregnancy, along with side effects. Both of those topics were addressed in the "Causes" section. Another goal was to include updates guidelines for treatment, which was provided in the "Management --> Medication" section. Overall I think this group did a wonderful job addressing all the topics they wanted to improve.

3. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes. Most sources throughout the article are from peer reviewed journals, such as The Journal of Pediatrics and Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing. The group does a good job outlining exactly what information comes from each source and keeps the tone of the article neutral and informational. These sources add a lot of evidence to the topic and really strengthen the article as a whole.

Alaynadornton (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person C 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the introduction for the section was a good way to introduce the audience to what is NAS and how it is defined.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? I believe so, I have read the previous edits and it greatly expanded on sections that needed more explanation.

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Yes.

4. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes, reading from their references I could see that it is formatted similarly

Jelizarragaoregel (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person D Peer Review Response:

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes. The group’s edit improved the article as they found supportive evidence through guidelines. Each section also is similar in length of content allowing each section to show its importance and relevance to NVS. The epidemiology section is very thorough and provides substantial information regarding information done from the early 2000s to 2024. The introduction also provides a neutral tone and clearly explains what the article will cover.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes. The group wanted to incorporate more information regarding symptoms, and prevalence of opiate use in pregnancy. They discuss how the opioid epidemic began to affect pregnant people. I see that they explained the ‘Cause’ section with proper lay language and for any medical jargon did their best to explain. This gave the article a good flow and made it easy for all groups to read.

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? [PERSON D] Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? Yes, the edits include language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. The focus was on understanding neonatal withdrawal. There was also information focused on how NVS affects both prenatal and postnatal. Then the information goes on to state how NVS affects both infants and pregnant people. There is also a section on geography that helps readers gain more knowledge of NVS in different parts of the world.

Anuki Edirimuni July 30th, 2024 Aedirimuni (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Language problems

I'm concerned about the language recently inserted in this article. " While mixture with other drugs, cannabis can prolong the effects of the additional." "Newborn infants with cocaine exposure during neonate manifests abnormal neurobehavioral." "As the drug is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and placenta, they will experience shortcomings." (Who?) "Newborn infants with cocaine exposure during neonate manifests abnormal neurobehavioral." Are these automated translations or something? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)