Talk:Septic abortion

Editing note: This article is hard to understand because sometimes it reads like septic abortion is causing septic abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eemstewart (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I updated the risk factor section. Case-fatality rate after mifepristone use due to sepsis is around 1:1,000,000. In the general population, Clostridium infections cause death in about 1 in 3,000 women of reproductive age regardless of pregnancy status. It's unclear that mifepristone use is actually a risk factor. Also updated treatment section to include medical management of retained tissue using misoprostol. 173.200.182.170 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)RATL

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lrambaran, E Tsou, Rasaeed, Hpark1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Stephwong23, Fu,Sherry, So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD, S. Baradaran Nakhjavani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 25 Proposed Edits

Our proposed edits are:

• Include more statistics on septic abortion
• Expand on the "Causes" section, specifically including bacterial strains that can cause the infection
• Create a "Diagnosis" header and dd more diagnosis information
• Create a "Prevention" section with primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention statistics
• Include more references throughout the page
• Add to the definition and background section
• Include and elaborate more on when in pregnancy is the infection most prevalent (statistics)

Rasaeed (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Rasaeed 7/28/2020

Hi there Rasaeed and the rest of Group 25! Welcome to Wikipedia. Those proposals sound good to me. As you try to decide what is missing from this page, something else that can be helpful is this list of suggested article sections that the community of medical editors has hammered out over the years. I see you've already proposed to add several of the suggested sections that are currently missing. That's great. I'll try to keep an eye on this talk page, so if you have questions as you get started editing, feel free to ask here (or at WT:MED for a broader audience). I'm glad to see more editors interested in medicine-related articles.. I hope you decide to stick around. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group 26 Proposed Edits

We will continue the proposed edits from last year, and also further include:

• expand upon definition and background section
• create an "epidemiology" section and pertinent information
• expand upon the "causes" section
• create a "diagnosis" section with pertinent information
• create "prevention" section with primary, secondary and tertiary prevention methods and statistics
• include more references for each section

So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Foundations II 2021

Part I:

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia Guiding Framework? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

1. This groups' edits does substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework". This group wrote a new leading section that briefly defines what septic abortion is. It may be helpful to utilize more lay language for ease since the general public has access to this information as well. They also appropriately added different subtopics that are relevant to this topic such as diagnosis, causes, imaging techniques, prevention, and epidemiology. With these additions, the article is much more well balanced. Additionally, it looks like this group used appropriate secondary sources. Many of their references are systematic reviews from organizations such as Cochrane Database or journals.Alhua3 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2. I do believe this group met many of their goals. Much of the focus went to adding topics that were originally not included in this article. Additionally, the original article lacked enough references. The opening paragraph gives a good introduction to this topic that was missing before. I also believe this group did a good job structuring their article so that it is easy to read and easy to navigate. Alhua3 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1 and 2) Based on the Wikipedia Guiding Framework, Group 26's edits have substantially improved this article with up to date and additional information on the topic, expanding on diagnosis of the condition, epidemiology, and prevention. The article was also expanded in regards to risk factors, causes, and potential complications. The structure implemented is clear to understand. As a reader, I was able to dissect the information without feeling overwhelmed by the terminology. The headings and topics discussed in the topic are relevant to the medical condition and provide a greater understanding for a general reader. The tone of the writing is neutral and does not disclose any type of bias. The sources used were recent in publication and reliable for the topic. The group also helped improved the article by increasing the number of hyperlinks to other relevant articles. The goals of the group can be considered complete. Group 26 were able to expand on the medical topic according the Wikipedia's manual of style by increasing the topics discussed in the article and updating with new secondary resources.

A.CONTRERASUCSF (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Arnold Contreras

1&2) I definitely feel like the group's edits substantially improved the septic abortion article. They added pertinent/relevant subheadings and explained each one well. The way the group structured their subheadings provided adequate flow so that it didn't feel like topics were jumping from one to another. I also believe the group achieved its overall goals for improvement. Specifically, they completely revamped the leading section to give readers a thorough introduction into septic abortion. I also appreciate how they added links throughout the article for words that lay readers may not know, such as endometrium and gestation. Additionally, they created multiple new sections and thoroughly explained each of them (diagnosis, clinical evaluation and lab test, microbiology, ultrasonography and other imaging techniques, complications, epidemiology, and the different types of prevention). This group really went above and beyond their goals as well as in substantially improving the article.

A. Takeshita (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

1 and 2) I believe group 26's edits substantially improved the article based on Wikipedia Guiding Framework and definitly met their goal. Group members added a large portion of useful information that were missing from the septic abortion article. Adding subheadings such as causes, diagnosis, clinical evaluation and lab technics, epidemiology and complications was such a great contribution to drastically improve the article using credible clinical resources. Article was written in lay language for the most part and I really liked the fact that for some more complex terms/concepts a hyperlink was added which will allow the users to learn more about those concepts. Additionally, the different sections were well-organized.They added a great number of resources making the article more credible. --AAllehyari (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)AAllehyari

Part II

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

After reading the septic abortion article, I feel like it maintains a neutral point of view. I was presented with information about septic abortion in an unbiased manner, as I didn't feel like the article wanted to persuade me to think or act in a certain way. I was given facts and information on the topic, which the group thoroughly cited. They used ample references, balanced their use of references throughout the article, and didn't heavily cite one source. I didn't see any use of the words, "the best idea" or "most people," which are phrases that aren't very neutral. Overall, the group was clear and concise in their additions to the article without being biased and judgmental.

A. Takeshita (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Group 26 did a great job of using secondary verifiable sources such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses.A large number of cited sources have free access to the main article, guidelines or the chapter of the book .However, some cited sources provide a link to the abstract not the full article. Some examples of these sources are: #6,7,11,17,20,24 and 31. Reference #2 isn't linked to the book/ebook.Instead, it gets directed to the online library website where you need to select a link or a local library for access. AAllehyari (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)AAllehyari

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

The edits made by Group 26 are made consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Specific headers such as risk factors and complications utilize bullet points for ease when reading. There are also appropriate headings with updated information that one might want to know when reading this topic. Citations are also appropriately used at the end of information taken from one reference as opposed to the end of every sentence. Capitalization non-capitalization of the term "septic abortion" is appropriate throughout the article. Finally, important terms were appropriately linked to their specific Wikipedia pages and will be very useful to readers without background medical knowledge.

Some suggested edits for this article: - In the Diagnosis section, the word abortion in the first sentence should be lowercase. - For terms describing diagnostic tests, other disease states or complex topics, embed their appropriate Wiki link following suit of the introductory paragraph and the Signs and Symptoms section - Capitalize "beta haemolytic streptococci in the Microbiology section to be consistent with Table !: Pathogenic Organisms in Septic Abortion --Alhua3 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The article uses the appropriate level language to discuss the medical terminology. The article supports diversity, equity, and inclusion by ensuring access to clinically essential information that is digestible for the typical reader. The edits recommended to improve the article language include the following: 1. "peritonitis" mentioned in the article could use some explanation on how it is related to inflammation or use a hyperlink for reader clarification. 2. "brandemic" could also need some clarification 3. In the Microbiology section, organism and types of cultures listed in the first paragraph can be separated by commas to prevent potential confusion. 4. In the Causes section, the second sentence elaborating on the development of sepsis can be broken into multiple sentences for easier reader comprehension. In the last sentence of the same paragraph, are the percentages associated with illegal abortions and miscarriages comparing death rates? 5. In the Epidemiology section, the third sentence discussing the prevalence of unsafe abortions uses "particular" twice. 6. In the first sentence of the third paragraph in Epidemiology, it is unclear who constitutes two-thirds of the population affected by septic abortion. Is it people between 16-24 or older married women? 7. In the prevention section, the statement that reads "Findings and studies have shown that women appear to have low knowledge on abortion regulations and laws in their countries" could use more elaboration or rephrasing. What are barriers to access to this knowledge?

A.CONTRERASUCSF (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Arnold Contreras

Reviewing References

1. stephwong23 reviewed references #8-14. there were no predatory webpages found. I found duplicates for current references "Eschenbach, David" and "Dulay, Antonette" and consolidated them to #12 and #13 respectively. Stephwong23 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
2. So.kim, future UCSF PharmD reviewed references #1-7. No predatory webpages were found. Duplicates for reference 1- Udoh et al., was found, so the duplicates were deleted and the in text citations were changed to #1 for the duplicates. In addition, references with dates with months were edited such that only the year published was in the reference. So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Fu,Sherry reviewed references #15-24, no predatory reference was found. Fu,Sherry (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)