Talk:Hyperprolactinaemia

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): E. Nguyen, UCSF Pharm.D. 23, ESabour, E Chu, PharmD 2023, E. Nguyen, Future UCSF Pharm.D. Peer reviewers: Jpena7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps

Perhaps a link to galactorrhea (production of breast milk outside pregnancy or normal breast feeding) would be appropriate under symptoms? -- Lara --

Sleep?

"Physiological causes (i.e. as result of normal body functioning): pregnancy, breastfeeding, stress, sleep."

Too much sleep? Too little sleep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.182.231 (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Minoxidil

I found the paragraph on Minoxidil to be ill-placed, I believe that it is too prominent and gives reader an exaggerated impression of danger. I don't necessarily thinks that it should be removed but definitely be relocated to a less prominent location. The work cited is still very preliminary, and Minoxidil is a drug which is commonly used and there is not reason to freak out its users.--Bastilleday uky (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

units?

My wife's blood work reported her prolactin level in mg/ml. If someone could say how this relates to the mIU/L used here, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.244.198 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SSRI's and prolactine level

Sollip Kim, and Young-Min Park, conclude the following in an article in Plos One, published 2 Dec. 2013: "These findings suggest that SSRI therapy can induce hyperprolactinemia in patients with MDD."

Kim S, Park Y-M (2013) Serum Prolactin and Macroprolactin Levels among Outpatients with Major Depressive Disorder Following the Administration of Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study. PLoS ONE 8(12): e82749. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082749 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchprudon (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Normal processes

Should there be a statement on whether hyperprolactinaemia can occur in the presence of adequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation? E. Nguyen, UCSF Pharm.D. 23 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group Hyperprolactinaemia Proposed Edits

Some improvements our group intend on making for this article include fixing language and grammar, adding more citations/secondary sources, as well as implement aforementioned suggestions on the talk page. E. Nguyen, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Peer Review

1. The group's edits did substantially improve the article according to the guiding framework. The group added useful information to make the article more complete. The introduction of the topic was easy to follow and gave a nice overview about the topic. Difficult phrases or words in the article were linked which was very useful for easier access of looking them up. This is very helpful when reading wikipedia articles. A suggestion would be in the Signs and Symptoms section (for women) to make it easier to read and understand. This is a complex topic and the average person might not understand all the medical terminology used without looking up many of the words. The submission does reflect a neutral point of view and did not take a side. In the article the word patient was used a few times, changing the word patients to people would help improve the neutrality of the article. The group has achieved its overall goal of improving the article by adding important information with reliable sources to back them. A couple of the references used were from clinical studies however these might have been used as there might not be many systematic reviews or other review journal to defend the topic. N.Bahman (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

2. The group's edits have substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia guiding framework and has achieved its overall goals for improvements. The group utilized secondary sources and used lay language to explain the topic. The summary/introduction contains a lot of details regarding the topic and is written in a concise manner. The entire article is broken down into different sections which is easy for readers to follow. A table is also included for better organization and visualization. Each paragraph is supported by at least one citation, and all the citations added by this group are verifiable secondary sources, such as systematic reviews, meta analysis, and books. Although not all sources are freely available to the public, most journals/papers have abstracts that are accessible to the public without subscription. Lam.N Pharm D 2023 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

3. Content added to the Hyperprolactinaemia article was neutral and well researched. Most factual information had necessary citations. Some discrepancies include: under "Signs and Symptoms" paragraph 2, aside from the first and last sentences, nothing else in the paragraph contains citations about the potential asymptomatic signs men with Hyperprolactinaemia may experience; under "Causes" and "Specific diseases", there are no citations for the first paragraph detailing prolactinomas or PCOS. Generally, the article read well, which addresses the group's goal of fixing language and grammar. Most factual information was cited. The edits formatted were consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Content was neutral, unbiased, and did not seem to sway the reader in any way. There are some inconsistencies within formatting of references. For references 4, 5, 6, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46, the dates of the sources either contain month and year or day, month, and year - citations should only contain publishing year for each source. Other than that the formatting of this article is sufficient. Nicolestruong (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

4. The group's edits improved the article and used the Wikipedia guiding framework. The group achieved the overall goal, adding several citations and expanded the sections already present. They also added numerical values, such as blood serum prolactin levels and size of tumors in the pituitary relevant as cause for hyperprolactinaemia. I do believe the article uses enough words to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. I didn't find words such a "patient;" instead, they use "people", "women" or "men". I also think the editors were not trying to attribute a single sign and symptom as the main point in the article or attributing it to only women or men. For example, they added that hyperprolactinemia causes decreased libido and sexual dysfunction in both women and men to a different degree, but the wording was explanatory, not persuassive. Jpena7 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference Editing

1) ESabour reviewed all citations for correct format according to Manual of Style. 6 citations were observed that needed edits, so appropriate dates were placed (only year and not month, date, and year). ESabour (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)ESabour

2)ESabour reviewed and no predatory sources were observed within the list of references, so no changes made ESabour (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)ESabour

3) E Chu, PharmD 2023 reviewed all citations for duplicate references and performed the following

• duplicate references 1, 8 and 40 consolidated to refer to reference 1
• duplicate references 2 and 9 consolidated to refer to reference 2
• duplicate references 3 and 16 consolidated to refer to reference 3
• duplicate references 4, 17 and 32 consolidated to refer to reference 4
• duplicate references 14, 26 and 30 consolidated to refer to reference 14
• duplicate references 16 and 31 consolidated to refer to reference 16
• duplicate references 34 and 37 consolidated to refer to reference 34

E Chu, PharmD 2023 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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): Lissethliu, Ivy.w.liang, ISELALOPEZ, Qingyl (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MLi UCSF, Jwli45, Mlequang, Mlee210.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing Plan

This article is flagged for using too many primary sources and not enough reliable sources, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews. So, our primary focus is to add more reliable sources, and swap out some primary sources for systematic reviews. ISELALOPEZ (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing Plan

This article needs to clearly define hyperprolactinemia. Clearly describe the symptoms associated with hyperprolactinemia in women and men. Elaborate on long-term effects. Ivy.w.liang (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing Plan

This article needs to check for duplicate reference and make sure all the reference is within the corresponding text. There are 3 reference that said " {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)" this will be fixed. Lissethliu (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II 2024 Peer Review

Q1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes. The updates to the lead section included relevant content and was overall very concise with the material presented. The introductory sentence highlights the main topic in bold, and it also includes hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages, which helps clarify any confusing terms for readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject. The content is current and relevant and addresses Wikipedia's equity gap by discussing the prevalence of reproductive diseases like polycystic ovary syndrome among women, a historically underrepresented group. One strength of the content is that the article is supported by more reliable sources, including recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which improves the credibility of the information presented. Although some of the references used are slightly outdated, this may be due to limited research/available information. The links to the sources are functional, and the images and tables included are beneficial and well-captioned. One area for further improvement could be breaking down lengthy paragraphs into shorter ones for better readability. MLi UCSF (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC) On top of everything previously mentioned, the group has added substantial edits and headers in order to clearly add to the article. The wordings are clear and understandable to a common reader.Mlee210 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, this group has made edits to the article that has made scientific research and analyses more digestible and accessible for other bodies not familiar with scientific literature. They used lay language while drawing from credible sources.--Mlequang (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Q2:Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. Based on the editing plan, a primary goal was to incorporate more reliable sources, which they achieved by adding additional meta-analyses and systematic reviews. They also updated the article with current resources, replacing outdated information. Additionally, the group included the long-term effects of symptoms for patients with hyperprolactinemia. MLi UCSF (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC) In addition, the group has met its editing plan and goals for defining hyperprolactinemia and explicitly describing the signs and symptoms under the heading.Mlee210 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Yes. The group has made most of the changes specified in their talk section for their plans of improvement. While they did state they'd like to improve the sources used, since most had been previously flagged for being a primary source, upon opening the article to review, it was still present as a warning to readers. This indicated there is still a source to be reexamined. --Mlequang (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Q3a: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes. The article does not have any biased statements that favor any particular position. It presents information that fairly represents the entire population which can be seen in the last paragraph of the lead section. MLi UCSF (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Q3b: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? The references sampled are verifiable, either credible sources from recent journals primarily within the 5-20 year range. However there are a few references that do not have direct links, so their status as freely available is unable to be confirmed. Mlee210 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Q3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? Yes. The edits made reflect language supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. The information presented addressed the occurrences in multiple genders and was non-exclusive of parties relevant to the condition. --Mlequang (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Title correction

Title should be changed to Hyperprolactinemia instead of Hyperprolactenaemia Lissethliu (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lissethliu Hi, I see that you are a student editor so I thought I would explain why Wikipedia uses the term Hyperprolactenaemia over Hyperprolactinemia. The medical side of wikipedia has its own set of instructions which can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, I highly recommend you read through it before making large edits. Based off those guidlines we tend to use the ICD to name our articles. The ICD-11 uses the term Hyperprolactenaemia (as shown here) therefore the Wikipedia page uses that term. While sometimes the article names don't perfectly match up with the ICD terminology, it is generally the preffered catagorization for article titles. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)