Talk:Pain management in children

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennac1117.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmorovati91, Henryhuang24, Jessicali cp133, Laurencline, Jetuaimer, Sallytpham, ThomasLeung1, Lbarsoumian. Peer reviewers: Kingandrea, Lynnlam2001, Victoriayi, Sharonzhong93, Noragwam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Add

• http://www.journalofnursingstudies.com/article/S0020-7489(15)00010-3/fulltext

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Article needs reformatting

This article needs to be restructured, as the current organization of the page is very confusing and difficult to follow, with lots of extraneous information. Many of the details included do not seem to be relevant to children in particular, but rather to pain in general.Rosguill (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources that support the content in this article specifically address pain in children. If you see a statement about pain in this article, you can assume the statement is about pain in children and infants. It was impractical to use "pain in children" every time the word "pain" appears. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing spring 2018

Hi, I will be editing this article over the course of the next month as part of my college writing class! I will focus on restructuring the article and adding in information related to prescription opioids for treatment in children.Jennac1117 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome and thank you for all the improvements that you have made so far. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 01:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Key image

Does it really add anything of value to the article to have an image of a child crying in the infobox? Natureium (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it is simply an illustration. I personally think it is valuable or else I wouldn't have included it. I can't imagine another image to insert since any image of a child in pain is probably not appropriate either. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Students fall 2018

Hello! My group of 4 will be working on sections of the article for the next few weeks. I will be expanding the acute pain treatment section under pharmacotherapy. Lara Barsoumian will be working on the chronic pain treatment section under pharmacotherapy. Dahlia Morovati will be working on pharmacotherapy abuse. Henry Huang will be expanding on neuropathic pain. I plan to include information on managing pain after dental procedures or surgeries. Our sources will include guidelines and journal reviews focused on pediatric pain management. Jessicali cp133 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Added more information on common sources of neuropathic pain, common symptoms, and defined central vs peripheral neuropathic pain. Introduced some therapies that have been shown to be effective in neuropathic pain management in children - i.e. SNI, SNRIs. Henryhuang24 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello all! I (Thomas Leung) will be expanding the "Cancer pain". My classmate Lauren Cline will be working on the non-pharm pain management section. Sally Pham will be updating the contraindications and side effects section. Min Ku will be working on the after treatment and traumatic measure section. We will be updating this article for the next 7 weeks. We plan to reorganize the section to make it more streamlined and easier to read. In particular, we want to include information regarding the various options for pain management, ranging from non-pharmacological treatments to opiates. We will to draw upon guidelines and articles focusing on pediatric cancer pain management to expand this article. We are open to all suggestions! ThomasLeung1 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure you have done the training, and are grounded in what kinds of sources are OK (WP:MEDRS) and how to format citations (WP:MEDHOW) and the style we use (WP:MEDMOS). And please don't be discouraged if your initial contributions are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I went through and took out bad-example things. Please review the existing content carefully - this needs significant revision based on recent, high quality sources. You picked a page that really needs care! Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• You all picked a very messed up page to work on. The structure is a mess and there is all kinds of weird stuff here. Please make sure that you are using recent, high quality MEDRS sources about pain management in children. Please do not add content here about pain management, generally, or opioid abuse, generally. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (group 29's edits)

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

I think this group's edits mainly fit Wikipedia's manual of style - the subheadings follow sentence case instead of title case and they stay consistent with the language throughout the article. Their citations to references also go after the punctuation, as is appropriate.

I did notice a few punctuation errors (for example, the sentence last sentence in the paragraph talking about CBT in the Non-pharmacological pain management does not have a period). There are also some grammatical errors, such as in the "After treatment" section (eg. "Morphine is effective and relatively safe, and is often used with moderate to severe pain" should read "used FOR moderate to severe pain"). I would just suggest proofreading all sections. I also think defining atraumatic measures in its respective section would be helpful and make that section clearer. -Shirley Ng Shirderp (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Prompt: Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify.

Under the "Cancer pain" section, there were no citations linked so I was not able to check for any of these violations. In addition, the image that was added was removed so I was not able to check for copyright violation. Otherwise, all other additions to the page have no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations. Victoriayi (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Hello! Thank you for your comments, the content was originally there and I did not want to remove what was there, but I rewrote the section uses valid sources.ThomasLeung1 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Prompt: Are the points verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify. Most points included were verifiable with cited secondary sources that were freely available to the general public. However, a citation should be added for the listed treatment options under non-pharmacological pain management. Also, the article, “Oral morphine versus ibuprofen administered at home for postoperative orthopedic pain in children: a randomized controlled trial” under the section, “contraindications and side effects”, is a primary source, so a more broad secondary source should be used to cite the statement about side effects of opioids compared to those of ibuprofen. Lynnlam2001 (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Lynn Lam

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

The submissions made by all group members reflected a neutral point of view. I liked how words and phrases used were impartial and the information presented was unbiased. For example, (in the non-pharmacological pain management section) instead of saying some methods were better than others, you put what was proven to be effective. Reliable resources that were cited did not reflect the author's viewpoints in any of the sections. One minor suggestion: include citations in the cancer pain section in order for the content to appear more objective. Noragwam (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Group 3's Peer Review for Group 14's edits

Q1: I believe that the edits on this page by group 14 are fairly neutral. The edits to this page were primarily organizational and stylistic and I felt that the additions made the content much clearer. I do not think that any of the edits made were biased towards a specific viewpoint. Papnejas2018 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q2: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• For "Acute pain treatment under pharmacology": References are good and accessible, except for ref 27. Ref. 27 "Twycross, p. 147" does not lead to another source. I've noticed there are other Twycross references in other parts of the article. Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• For "Chronic pain treatment section": WHO guidelines are informative and accessible. Could probably extract more information under WHO's section 3.7. Ref 26 "American Pain Society" is also good, but can be used for expansion and reference for talking about cognitive behavioral therapy and other non-pharm strategies. Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• For "Pharmacotherapy abuse" section: I think it was removed, so I checked "Opioids". Ref 33 is about adolescents while Red 34 is about pediatrics, so I don't think they can be used together. Also, I don't think they validate the sentence anyways. Ref 34 and 35 do not provide full text. Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• For "neuropathic pain": Good references but cannot access full text for ref 7. Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's annual of style? The page is very informative, but its organization is too hard to follow without a clear introduction. Expanding the one-liner and context of the topic should help. In terms of following wiki layout style, I think it'd help to have an overarching header "Pain types" which then branch out to neuropathic pain, acute pain, etc. I also noticed there are citations missing in the first few parts explaining various pain types that say "medical citation" instead of the conventional reference number. Good luck! Aivytran (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• note for Wikipedia, there is no requirement that sources be open source. it is a very good thing when they are open source, but if great references are not open source, that is not any kind of "ding" on them. If a great reference that is paywalled can be replaced by an equally good open source ref that is fine (and very often they can be), but please never advocate for replacing a higher quality source with a lower quality one, purely on the basis that the lower quality ref is open and the better one is paywalled. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Annette.chu1 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q4: Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There are no signs of plagiarism or copyright violation found in Group 14's topics. However, I wasn't able to access some references such as [25] and a citation is needed for the first sentence of the second paragraph under "Chronic pain treatment". - (Timothy Do) Timothy.do (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (group 5's edits)

Q1: Most of it has a neutral point of view; however, there was one section that showed some sort of bias towards multimodal analgesia. There is some reference saying that multimodal analgesia is recommended by American Pain Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. The benefits were stated, but I believe that there should be some sentences talking about the risks as well. −Tommylam0515 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q2: Sources are easily verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available - good incorporation of guidelines. Consider adding a citation under “After Treatment” section to support statement that aspirin should not be used in pediatric patients due to risk of Reye’s Syndrome. —Sharonzhong93 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q3: A proper introduction to the topic and background typically found before the “table of contents” is missing - the one sentence introduction is too short and doesn’t explain what will be discussed in the rest of the article or why there are different kinds of pain consideration. Additionally, there are basic definitions missing. For example in the “acute pain” section, there is no explanation of what acute pain is and the difference between acute vs chronic pain and how it’s managed differently. This can be addressed in the intro paragraph or defined in the acute pain section, OR linked to the “acute pain” wikipedia page. -NsrUCSF (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Q4: Plagiarism and copyright violations were not found. A lot of material was cited from Twycross, and since I do not have the book, I was not able to double check. I would like to add there was a decent amount of sentences without citations. The only feedback I’d like to give is that more references are needed. Leesursaur (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Group 13's Peer Review

1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, this draft reflects a neutral point of view. Additions to the article are strictly informational and are correctly cited. Edits to the pharmacotherapy section do not emphasize one form of treatment over the other and offer insight to different treatment options (including benefits and adverse effects of each). --Kingandrea (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Are the points included verifiable with cites secondary sources that are freely available?

The edits under Cancer pain included a lot of information, but does not have any citation. The edits under After Treatment has very thorough citations that are freely available and are easy to refer to. All other edits made by the group had great citation of secondary sources as well. Beatrice1223 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Are the edits formatted consistent w/Wiki’s manual of style?

No, formatting is not consistent with Wiki’s manual of style. It is not organized logically. Opioid information is not in opioid section.--Sseav (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, please correct this heading "Society and culture====Misconceptions" :) --Sseav (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Is there evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? --WikiAKing (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC) I answered the following questions to determine evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation: Do you notice any irregularities in formatting that might suggest the copying of material directly from another source?

- No, formatting looks fine.

Did the editors correctly cite the edited material?

- Yes, the editors did a great job of citing. Good citations in: Neuropathic Pain, After treatment, Non-pharm pain management, Pharmacotherapy, Chronic pain treatment, Acute pain treatment, Cancer pain treatment, and Opioids. I did notice that there are no citations in Cancer Pain and that some citations may be missing in Adverse effects. Other than that, great work.

Are there any sections with long blocks of quotes in quotation marks?

- None.

Is the writing full of unusually complex or sophisticated jargon?

- No. I believe the edits were easy to follow and all seemed written at a level you would expect of pharmacy school students. Points were clear and concise and did not involve too much jargon.

Overall verdict: I did not notice any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation.

Updating of page

As on 06.11.2019, I am currently working on adding Cochrane Reviews to this page. I will restructure the content to help improve readability of sections and flow of information. This will be an ongoing update over the next few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alib2019 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this @Alib2019: Great to hear that you will be improving this page. If there is anything that I can do to help please leave me a message on my talk page. JenOttawa (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)