From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primary Review[edit]

I recommend adding more information to the lead section; it should include main points that will be discussed in your article.

Under the Diagnosis section do not use abbreviations if you have not used the word before, for example spell out CT (Computed tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Also, I recommend adding an image of an MRI or CT scan for the reader to have an idea of what the scan will look like. I also recommend on expanding on the type of reflex tests conducted.

Under decompression sickness do not use the abbreviation DCS unless you specify in the beginning of the paragraph that DCS refers to decompression sickness. Also, say Oxygen instead of O2.

Under Trigeminal Schwannoma be more specific of what you mean by “increased effects” in the last sentence.

I picked the first citation to verify, “Operative management of trigeminal neuromas: an analysis of a surgical experience with 55 cases.” Although, this article is cited correctly, it is not a secondary source. It is primary research; it discusses the research method and results/ analysis. I recommend searching on the NCBI website and on the side panel click on review to find secondary sources.

Overall, this article follows the layout as discussed in the Wikipedia: good article criterion, but it needs more details under each section. There are a couple of grammatical errors, but they can be easily corrected by reading through the article. I am unsure what your goal was for this article, since it was not included in the talk page, but as I was reading the article I came to the conclusion that you wanted to include the different states of hypoesthesia (is this right or wrong?). If this was the case I agree that you included appropriate information, but needs more detail. Throughout the article your writing was neutral. Like I mentioned before try incorporating images, because it makes it easier for the reader to understand and follow along. Your article is not entirely verifiable because your first source is a primary source. MMstudentMU (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much for the feedback. Based on your feedback we have changed the abbreviations and grammatical errors that weren't noticed initially. We also added a couple of images to increase reader engagement based on your feedback. Also, thank you for the comment about the first source being a primary source, but I do believe that it is a secondary source. While it does have a methods section, the methods mentioned are comparative in nature, and the original sources for the various cases are noted in Table 1 of the article. Thank you again for your review! --Wheatona22 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your review! We also added more information to the lead section. Your suggestions were very helpful. Wagnerb95 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review[edit]

Article is decent but in my opinion could use some additional improvements. One thing is that I think that the article could use some visuals since article is currently lacking in them. Although I don't think it's required, it would make it look better and help keep the reader engaged. Given the subject you would probably only need one. Another thing I would recommend is to expand the intro paragraph with some additional information if at all possible. D. Royevich (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)D. Royevich Thank you for your feedback, we have since added some visuals to help inform readers and have added to the intro/lead. --Wheatona22 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You guys have a good start to the article but there are a few improvements I would suggest. I think that you guys should develop a lead that encompass all the major points in a nutshell. In the leads you could possibly talk about how many people are affected by this or the significance of this condition. You guys also do not have any pictures. I think that you could incorporate a photo in the Trigeminal Schwannoma section, just simply showing a picture of the tumor growth on a nerve. You also could have a picture of the phenotype if possible (i.e if this results in the inability of contraction of certain facial muscles). Overall, I think that you guys did a great job on presenting the information with clarity from a neutral point of view. However, more content needs to be added. JLPhys2018 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback, there was a schwannoma slide image added, although there were no images showing an actual physical case of the disease available, and aside from that it would be difficult to express numbness in an image. --Wheatona22 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions! More information was added to the lead as well. Wagnerb95 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review[edit]

I know the topic might be a small topic but I feel like it can be expanded on a little more. Are there any pathophysiology articles that might explain some potential pathways to this side effect? Are there multiple underlying causes or just one? Also source #6 at the bottom of the page is not hyperlinked. Willc22 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much for your feedback. Sadly there were very few resources aside from those just listing that hypoesthesia was a side effect of a condition, though we did our best to expand upon them. Also, thank you for noticing link 6, we are for some reason having issues linking the article's title, but it is now hyperlinked through the PMID. --Wheatona22 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review[edit]

Six Article Criteria[edit]

1. Well Written – • Under the Rhombencephalitis section, “Schwannoma” is mis-spelled. You have “Schwanonoma” instead of “Schwannoma”. Also in this section, the second sentence, remove the word “the” before Trigeminal Schwannoma. • Under the Trigeminal Schwannoma section, in the fourth sentence – “Excision is the only effective treatment of Trigeminal Schwannoma, thought this may not treat…” “Thought” should be changed to “though.” Also in this section, in the first sentence, “cranial nerve five” should be changed to “fifth cranial nerve” or “cranial nerve V” or “CN V” Also, maybe try to condense the part where you start talking about how the trigeminal nerve innervates the face and that is where the numbness happens. Maybe try “The trigeminal nerve innervates the face, thus, facial hypoesthesia is experienced. • Under Decompression Sickness, in the last sentence, instead of writing “O2”, either write “oxygen” or “O2” with the 2 as a subscript. • Other than that, everything else seemed fine. Everything was easy to understand and to the point. 2. Verifiable with no original research- • The first reference listed in your references, is not a secondary source. I’m not entirely sure about the third reference though. It is possible that it is not a secondary source. I would recheck that one. • Everything else looks good. 3. Broad in coverage- • I know you put the symptoms in the lead section, but I think it would be good to have a separate symptoms section to explain the symptoms. Obviously it is still fine to have the symptoms in the lead section. • Everything else is explained and straight to the point. Symptoms, diagnosis, causes, and treatments are explained. Although it would be nice to have more treatment explanations for each cause or disease state you lay out. Some like CSD, IETSC, and Beriberi don’t have the treatments explained in those sections. 4. Neutral- • I do not see any bias or unfair representation of viewpoints. 5. Illustrated- • I don’t know if you guys were able to find any relevant pictures, but it doesn’t hurt to have at least one. An example could be an image of someone feeling the area where they are numb.

I reviewed the 5th source “Intradural extramedullary tuberculoma of the spinal cord: a review of reported cases.” This source is a secondary source since it is reviewing reports from the past 25 years. You properly used this source in your article where you explained what IETSC is and how it is one of the disease states of hypoesthesia. What is written in the article about IETSC is also found from the source. Although, I would have included the treatment to this disease as it is stated in the source. I also might include how closely related it is to tuberculosis, as anti-tuberculosis medication is involved in the treatment of IETSC. Bkeefer97 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Bkeefer97 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review[edit]

I think adding visuals to this article would aid greatly in improving the look of the article. I also think that there should be more information in the introduction to the page. It would be helpful to briefly touch on the two main sections of the article so that people who just want a quick idea of what hypoesthesia can get it without having to read the entire article.ThayerM12 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review[edit]

      This article could definitely use some additional improvements which is okay! I would suggest grasping the reader's attention more in the beginning to make sure that you prepare them for what is in store for the topic at hand. Also, the lack of images does not allow this article to stand out like it possibly could, and more information in the various sections would be helpful as well. I believe this article is on the right track to be a great one, it's okay for it to be short and sweet, but add some more information and pictures if possible and this would be a great article!

JCW23528 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review[edit]

The article was very informative regarding hypoethesia. The writing was done well and is clear and concise for the majority of the article. It was a little vague in the introduction; the addition of a sentence or two explaining that hypoethesia is a symptom for multiple disease states would help make this less vague. The article does do a good job of maintaining a broad description of the topic, and the links for the different disease states helps guide the reader to the more specific and detailed information. The article also fulfilled the neutrality requirement, remaining informative and unbiased. Regarding images, it seems like your topic would be difficult to illustrate, so could you perhaps find images of one or two of the disease states to include? A map of the spinal innervations, human dermatomes, or a simplified touch transduction pathway image might be applicable.

I reviewed the 6th source (about Cutaneous sensory disorder). It is a secondary source as defined by Wikipedia, and its use as a citation was correct. The information the source is cited for is described within the source. The information about CSD being more common in areas with denser epidermal innervation would be a good addition to the CSD section.

Overall the article was well written and easy to read. The majority of the relevant terms were linked to their respective Wikipedia pages. I would suggest adding a link to the Rhombencephalitis page if there is one. Also, the use of DCS as an abbreviation should be first used immediately after the first full spelling of the decompression sickness. Shelly870 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review[edit]

Great article so far! Just a few suggestions to make it even better:

-I like that you got right to the point and explained what hypoesthesia is; however, it is just a definition. It would be helpful to talk more about the HOW. For example, talk about the general mechanism (as I’m sure it’s different in the distinct disease states) in terms of neurology that causes this lack of sensitivity - i.e. what signals are not being transduced, etc. (in a general public friendly way, of course) - I actually noticed that you explained how hypoesthesia occurs in the DCS section - I believe it is better suited in the introduction. You could also talk about the disease states in general - you explain each of them individually, but in the beginning, maybe stating that there are different degrees/severity of numbness? This way they aren’t all of a sudden introduced later on in the article.

-If you’re going to abbreviate (such as you did with decompression sickness as DCS) you should do it right at the beginning, right where you introduced it. Example: Decompression sickness (DCS) occurs during...

-Talking about the prevalence of each of the disease states, ages mostly affected, what is long or short term effects of having this abnormality, etc. would also be great information for the audience.

-Check on some capitalization and grammatical errors (hypoesthesia was capitalized in the middle of one sentence but left uncapitalized in others - this is just an example, there could be more things I didn’t catch). -Pictures would be of great aid to the audience

Hope this is helpful, good luck on editing! MTZ15 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)MTZ15