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): K. Huang, Future UCSF Pharm.D., LDavis5, K.Alcera, H. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D.. Peer reviewers: J.Jones UCSF, J.Chin, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Nkhair73, J.Chao, Future UCSF Pharm.D.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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): J.W.Hon, Cynthia Fu, Future UCSF Pharm.D., A.Nono, Future UCSF PharmD..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group 30 proposed edits

Include prevalence of opiate use in pregnancy, more in-depth information about the two types of NAS: prenatal and postnatal, long term follow up. A.Nono, Future UCSF PharmD. (talk)25 December 2024

NEJM

doi:10.1056/NEJMra1600879 JFW | T@lk 23:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds

Does anyone have an audio recording of an infant in withdrawal? It might be useful alongside the description of the distinctive crying.Sumanuil (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Foundations 2 Group 16: Proposed edits

Prevalence of opiate use in pregnancy, prevalence of each side effect, in-depth information about the two types of NAS: prenatal and postnatal, simplify the language, long-term follow up, in-depth information about causes of neonatal withdrawal, add citations where necessary LDavis5 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Foundations 2 Group 15 Peer Review

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as outlined in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework"?

The revisions by group 16 are relevant to the overall topic. Revising the epidemiology section allows the readers to understand the subject better. The structure of the article is clear and concise. One example is the inclusion of the definition of pre and post-natal withdrawal, it was a beneficial addition to the article as it clears the confusion about the types of natal withdrawal and allows the readers to understand that there are many different types of withdrawal. One thing that could have been done is creating a new section for a mechanism to provide a clearer context of how NAS/drugs work on the brain on infants. Nkhair73 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group 15's edits substantially improved the article by using simple and concise language, but not omitting any details or other relevant information to the topic. The topics on Diagnosis (Assessment) and Epidemiology bring light to the current limitations of available diagnostic tools and the evolving landscape of this syndrome; discussing the need for further research in this area is a valuable piece of the article. This article now contains complete and accurate information for readers. - J.Jones UCSF (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think Group 15's edits substantially improved the article. The contents of the article are explained clearly and thoroughly, particularly the causes, diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment sections, which were revised with more details from quality peer-reviewed journal sources. I like how the treatment section is structured to have two sections: one dedicated to non-pharmacological treatments and the other dedicated to pharmacological treatments; it is clear by reading the article that first line treatment of NAS is non-pharmacological treatment so good job! however, I think rewording the subtitles from "non-medication" to "non-medication treatment" and from "medication" to "medication treatment" will make it even clearer. Also, this a is a minor suggestion but I think inserting wiki-links to medical terminology like "meconium", "prenatal", "postnatal", "heroin", "buprenorphine", "neurotransmitters", etc would be helpful for readers to more easily understand the article.J.Chin, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The group's edits have substantially improved the article and provided more depth of information to the topic of neonatal withdrawal. The added information in the introduction paragraph about statistics and percentage of newborns affected really showcases how serious this syndrome is and sets the tone for the rest of the article. The added outcome section provided an important outlook on prognosis of infants with this syndrome but this section also stated that more research needed to be done in this area which creates a space for future contributions from the community. Not only were the added edits relevant to the topic but the group's edits to the structure of the article really enhanced the organization and readability, especially in the organization of the treatment section where options were separated based on non-medication or medication options. J.Chao, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the group achieved its overall goal for improvement?

Yes. The article was significantly improved from the latest version of the article before revisions The expansion of the various sections from a couple of sentences to include more information contributed to the overall goals of the article. Ultimately, team 16 was successful in being able to complete the overall goals of simplifying the language, adding more information about long-term care, and clarifying the different types of neonatal withdrawal. Nkhair73 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group 15 met the majority of their goals for the article. Notably, the article has many sources which seem to be reliable and diverse. The group also achieved their goals by adding information on side effect prevalence, defining the two types of NAS in the article lead, and expanding upon the causes of NAS. - J.Jones UCSF (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Group 16 has achieved its overall goal for improvement. The lead has been updated with the epidemiology of NAS which is great in letting readers how much NAS is affecting the population. I think the lead should include brief sentences explaining the signs and symptoms of NAS, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment which are talked about in the rest of the article. However, overall, Group 16 has done a great job in adding relevant content from reliable secondary sources to the topics discussed. The tone of the article is also neutral without being too heavy on one point of view. One sentence in the article that I think was a little tone-heavy was in the prevention section: "Women can discuss all medicines and alcohol and tobacco use with their health-care provider and get assistance to help stop drug use as soon as possible. Indications that a pregnant woman needs help are if she is using drugs non-medically, ...". Maybe rewording these two sentences to "...and get assistance to abstain from drug use..." and "medical attention is recommended if a pregnant individual is...".J.Chin, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the group has achieved its overall goal for improvement. The revised article is significantly more detailed and organized than the original version. All of the additional edits have provided an in-depth insight on the topic of neonatal withdrawal. For example, the original article mentioned the Finnegan scoring system without explaining how it is used but the group revised this and detailed how the scores are assessed. The group also really improved the article by addressing barriers to prevention which provided a comprehensive review. J.Chao, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The majority of the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. NAS is a sensitive topic; however, the group was able to successfully avoid using any words or phrases to cause further stigma regarding the topic. One improvement would be to change terms such as "pregnant women" to more neutral terms such as "pregnant individual" to promote inclusivity within the article. Nkhair73 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes. Most of the points included in the article are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available; majority of the sources are either review articles, meta analysis, and practice guidelines from the Cochrane Library and peer-reviewed journals such as Pediatrics, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA Pediatrics, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. Most of the secondary sources are also up-to-date and within the last 10 years. There are only a few primary sources like RCTs being used as a source in the article

- in the "prevention" section: Heil SH, Jones HE, Arria A, et al. Unintended pregnancy in opioid-abusing women. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011;40(2):199-202. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.08.011

- in the "causes" section: Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(24):2320-2331. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1005359J.Chin, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? Yes, the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The article begins with a leading introductory paragraph followed by clearly labeled sections. Bulleted lists follow the same format of sentence fragments. The article has a clear structure and balanced coverage of topics. One thing to note would be the font sizes of the bolded words vary a little between sections but overall the edits are consistent. J.Chao, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overall, the article uses language that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are no instances of using the word "patients;" instead, the terms infant and neonate are used to describe the afflicted individual. Given the nature of this topic, it is challenging to use strictly gender-neutral language. Perhaps, consider limiting the use of the term "mothers" since it carries an emotional conotation, and replace it with "pregnant women" or "women who gave birth." Additionally, "baby" may be replaced with "infant" or "neonate" for article consistency. - J.Jones UCSF (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References reviewed

K. Huang, Future UCSF Pharm.D. reviewed #1-10
K.Alcera reviewed #11-20
LDavis5 reviewed #21-30
H. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D. reviewed #31-41
Predatory publishers: Reference 9 was from commercial website “Medscape," and replaced with a reference from non-profit organization March of Dimes
No duplicate references were identified

"birthing person"

is the change from "mother" to "birthing person" required Wikipedia policy? --142.163.194.161 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"lack of consensus"

in " there are some barriers to prevention which includes lack of consensus to screening tools to identify substance use while pregnant" does "lack of consensus" mean "lack of access"? or "lack of consent"? or "lack of consensus among medical professionals"? --142.163.194.161 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]