User:PPatel224/Uterine prolapse/Typemd21 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

PPatel224

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PPatel224/Uterine_prolapse?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Uterine prolapse

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Palak! You've made some incredible contributions to this page - thank you for your work and for such enlightening material that is sure to help many individuals. My feedback with the guiding review is below:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, I can clearly see that you've updated the lead and have in fact made it very efficient and precise with pertinent details.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it does.

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

It does in most cases - I understand not including so much of the history or social/cultural aspects of the disease, especially as these points are not very detailed or necessarily pertinent to the point of the article. You may consider adding a very brief mention of the major cause of prolapse, as well as the predominantly shared value for incidence of prolapse (perhaps with a short statement saying that the values appear to be exam-dependent) and statement of typical outcome.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

I wasn't initially certain where risk factors were found in the article, but I did eventually find it embedded in the Causes section. I don't think it needs to be more clearly distinguished, but in the event that you think it's important for readers to be able to find those factors quickly, it's something to consider. Otherwise, no, the lead covers details of the article very well.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is perfectly concise - enough detail is provided to answer quick questions a reader might have about the topic, but it does not go into greater specifics that would be better covered in the article body.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, it is incredibly relevant. The detailed but efficient discussion in Management was an excellent contribution for afflicted individuals who are likely very concerned about next steps in their care. Likewise, the images included really elevate the article so that anyone reviewing this topic has a much easier understanding of what is happening, both in the pathophysiology and in the treatment of this disorder.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes - based on guidelines I'm familiar with and in evaluating the references provided, the added content is current.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I noticed that the draft article includes a little more detail in some areas (specifically, one sentence in the Diagnosis section that describes the physical exam in slightly greater detail). I think that the content could be valuable for the main page, particularly for readers who are not familiar with pelvic exams or who may not be expecting that a pelvic exam is part of the physical exam process - especially if you link them to other wikiarticles that go through the process in even greater detail.

I wouldn't classify this as content that does not belong but this particular line in Outcomes (For apical prolapse specifically, a meta-analysis found the reoperation rates for traditional vaginal vault suspension (meaning sacrospinous ligament fixation and uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension), sacrocolpopexy, and transvaginal mesh procedure were 3.9%, 2.3%, and 1.3% respectively) may be a little too technical for the common reader. An image that demonstrates these anatomical features may be beneficial, otherwise it might be best to condense this down to a very simple statement like...multiple types of surgical procedures for suspension also have low reoperation rates?

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, this disorder is predominantly faced by women but may also occur in transsexual individuals following sexual reassignment surgeries or in transgender males. The latter two populations are not addressed yet in the article, so this is an area that could strengthen the article in the future! I do appreciate that it covers some of the more worrisome complications that occurred with transvaginal mesh for full disclosure and neutrality on the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content is neutral - you use several qualifiers to suggest neutrality (e.g., "normally", "typical procedure", "may include") and in cases where consensus does not exist or data is conflicting, you make this clear while providing only factual statements for the reader to make their own judgments.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No claims that were added appeared to be heavily biased toward a particular position.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No viewpoints appeared to be over or underrepresented. History had more content change than other sections, but it seems that this was due to the nature of the existing article having very little in this section.

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content does not sound persuasive - statements appear either factual or neutral when multiple choices are available. I think you did a particularly great job with the management discussion of surgeries, where it might be easy to bias patients toward a particular procedure: instead, you provide what is generally preferred but qualify that the alternative is preferred for certain conditions (e.g., abdominal procedures may reduce risk of postoperative intercourse pain).

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, nearly every reference is either a textbook or systematic review, except where appropriate (e.g., historical news discussions reference appropriate news articles). Only a few lines were not supported by any reference:

- (Causes) The causes of uterine prolapse are generally the same as the causes of other forms of pelvic organ prolapse.

- (Management) Pessaries are a mechanical treatment that supports the vagina and elevates the prolapsed uterus to its anatomically correct position.

- (Management) In severe cases of prolapse where the person no longer desires vaginal intercourse and has contraindications to more invasive surgery, vaginal closure procedures may be offered.

- (Management) Also taken into consideration prior to surgery is use of native, or one's own, tissue versus a synthetic mesh.

- (History) By the early 20th century, different techniques for vaginal hysterectomies had been described and performed.

- (History) Throughout history, the management of uterine prolapse has been hampered by a poor understand of female pelvic anatomy.

- (History) During the first century C.E., the Greek physician Soranus would disagree with many of these practices and recommend the use of wool, dipped in vinegar or wine and inserted into the vagina, to lift the uterus back into place.

- (History) Pessaries were usually made out of wax, metal, glass, or wood.

- (History) In 1861, Choppin in New Orleans reported the first instance in which vaginal hysterectomy was performed for uterine prolapse.

- (History) In 1957, Arthure and Savage of London's Charing Cross Hospital, suspecting that uterine prolapse could not be cured with hysterectomy alone, published their surgical technique of sacral hysteropexy.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Spot-checking several of the sources, the content was consistent with cited references.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, I think you did a terrific job with the variety of sources, including multiple textbooks and systematic reviews. The sources are generally all published within the last 7 years (the oldest is 2007, but most range from 2016-2022 and I was really impressed with the number of included texts that were published just in the past 2 years). The textbooks are written by numerous different authors, introducing good variety in professional opinion and experience; different specialties are also included to provide greater detail regarding specific aspects of the disorder (e.g., urogynecology textbooks vs more general textbooks in the field of OBGYN).

• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

I think in the rare instances you used news coverage, your article source was appropriate (The New York Times); however, you may be interested in this systematic review that did a little bit of a deeper dive into the FDA approval process for mesh products!

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they do! My only additional comment is that you had one duplicate source: 22/23 in your sandbox article are both Culligan's Urogynecology in Primary Care (2007).

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Generally yes, it is very well-written with great flow. I found it very easy to read most sections, though there are areas in Management and Outcomes relating to specific anatomical areas or procedures that may be a little too technical for readers. I know you already introduced several great images, but those particular sections might benefit from a reminder of the anatomy in question to help guide readers if you think the terminology cannot be reduced down further!

Here are a few sections where you might reconsider some word choice to make it easier for readers to understand - these are just suggestions! I think generally, you did a really great job of making it accessible to the majority of readers:

- (From Signs and Symptoms) The severity of prolapse symptoms does not necessarily correlate with the degree of prolapse...

- (Causes) Operative vaginal delivery, such as when forceps are used, has been found to increase the odds of pelvic organ prolapse when compared to non-operative vaginal delivery [you might consider linking operative vaginal delivery so readers can understand better what this entails]

- (Causes) Age also plays a significant role in uterine prolapse, with prevalence increasing with each decade of life due in part to age-related changes to pelvic support structures and estrogen depletion during menopause.

- (Pathophysiology) The uterosacral ligaments are especially important in providing support to the uterus by suspending and anchoring the uterus, cervix, and upper vagina to parts of the pelvic wall.

- (Management) Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to abdominal procedures in prolapse surgery have become more common as they require smaller incision sites, result in less blood loss, and have shorter hospital stays [consider linking "Laparoscopic" so readers can understand what that means]

- (Management) However, the use of synthetic mesh transvaginally, or within the vaginal tissue itself, is not indicated and is not routinely used due to a lack of safety and efficacy data, higher rate of mesh erosion compared with native tissue repair, and lack of data regarding long-term outcomes and complication rates

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, just a few - here are the ones that stood out to me:

- (From signs and symptoms): People may also report sexual dysfunction symptoms, such as pain with sexual intercourse and decreased libido...

- (From signs and symptoms): The severity of the symptoms associated with prolapse seems to have a negative effect on sexual activity and reported satisfaction.

- (Pathophysiology) The levator ani muscle plays the most significant role in pelvic organ support by acting as a basket that keeps the pelvic organs suspended.

- (Pathophysiology) Problems with the vaginal wall, such as [delete through] trauma or loss of smooth muscle support in the wall, can lead to the uterus collapsing downward due to a loss of support.

- (Pathophysiology) Estrogen deficiency, [delete such as] [add which can occur] during menopause, can affect the production of collagen that is needed to build connective tissue...

- (History) Throughout history, the management of uterine prolapse has been hampered by a poor understanding of female pelvic anatomy.

- (History) During the Hippocratic era, approximately 460 B.C.E., it was thought that the uterus was similar to [that of] an animal's.

- (History) During the first century C.E., the Greek physician Soranus would disagree with many of these practices and recommended the use of wool, dipped in vinegar or wine and inserted into the vagina, to lift the uterus back into place.

- (History) He would also go on to recommend surgical treatment of gangrenous portions of a prolapsed uterus.

- (History) However, even into the 1800s, alternative practices were still used, such as [add the] use [add of] astringents, sea-water douches, postural exercises, and leeching.

- (History) Although the use of surgery in [delete the] the treatment of uterine prolapse...

- (History) in [capitalize first word] 1877, LeFort described the process

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes - the content follows the manual of style and does reflect major points in the topic that should be addressed.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, the articles included were terrific and enhanced the understanding of the topic in this article. I made some suggestions above in the areas that discuss different types of surgical procedures - I'm not sure if images exist to either demonstrate the surgical procedure or highlight the anatomical features involved, but those images may contribute greatly to the understanding of those sections.

• Are images well-captioned?

The captions are good - my only suggestion might be that "bilaterally paired" (uterosacral ligaments) may be a little too advanced for some readers to understand. You might also clarify what the sacrum is in more layman's terms!

• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, the images follow copyright regulations and are laid out in a way that makes sense and flows with the article.