Talk:Purple urine bag syndrome

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some useful references

Guei MC, Yao KH, Lagou DA, Coulibaly PNA, Sawadogo A, Moudachirou MIA, Tia WM, Konan SD, Diopoh S, Cherif I, Ackoundou-N’Guessan KC, Gnionsahe DA. Le syndrome de la poche à urines violette : à propos d’un cas. Nephrol Ther. 2018 Feb 4. pii: S1769-7255(18)30001-4. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.nephro.2017.11.004

Akcora L, Lib X, Rousselya B, Yaicib A, Lefrançois A, Da Violantea C, Hermelin-Jobeta I. Syndrome de la poche à urine violette ou Purple Urine Bag Syndrome (PUBS) : à propos d’un cas clinique. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. Available online 3 February 2018.

Llenas-García J, García-López M, Pérez-Bernabeu A, Cepedaa JM, Wikman-Jorgensen P. Purple urine bag syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis. European Geriatric Medicine. 2017 Jul; 8(3):221-27.

Kalsi DS, Ward J, Lee R, Handa A. Purple Urine Bag Syndrome: A Rare Spot Diagnosis. Dis Markers. 2017;2017:9131872. https://doi.org/doi:10.1155/2017/9131872

Hakan Koçoğl, et al. Balkan Med J. 2016 Nov; 33(6): 717–718.

Five references from: http://realitesbiomedicales.blog.lemonde.fr/2018/02/19/quand-les-urines-sont-violettes/

References that could be useful for the translation of this page from the English to the French. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Bag Syndrome

I was just wondering if anyone has purple bag syndrome . Remyers114 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VictoriaYan.ucsf, Jzhang33, Jyeh06, RYou.SOP, AlissaZ (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pvedam, Wendy xie00, SUemura30, Iwill95, Yunling.Yang.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goals and Objectives for Article for Class of 2026

-add more detail to existing sections (signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, epidemiology, and history)

-use more lay terms to describe catheters, chemicals produced, tryptophan, and alkaline terms

-include more references from secondary/tertiary material

- VictoriaYan.ucsf (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews from Group

Peer reviews SUemura30 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person A: SUemura30 SUemura30 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

The group's edits have substantially improved the article. Many sections currently included in the article have been added in totality by the group whereas the sections that were there previously have been expanded significantly or further explained. The inclusion of chemical structures also helps the readers to continue researching the chemicals themselves if they are still interested. SUemura30 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has met its overall goals for improvement of the article. Much more additional information was given regarding the treatment as well as completely new information for risks and prevention. They also added much more lay language for many of the treatment/chemical descriptions. SUemura30 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, the article maintains a neutral point of view throughout. The information given throughout the article is given in a general manner without any form of bias or opinion. Additionally, the information that was referenced in the article came from a variety of different sources, which also helped maintain a neutral and impartial tone. SUemura30 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person B: Wendy xie00 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Yes, this group's edits did substantially improve the article and expanded upon the information that was already on the topic's page. The lead section was easy to understand and provided a sufficient amount of information about this topic to introduce the readers to what they were about to read. There is a clear structure to each section of the page; however, improvements could be made to the order of each section (i.e., moving to the top of the page). There is a balance in the information that is covered regarding the different aspects of this topic. Wendy xie00 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

The group did achieve their goals for the article. Although I have not seen the original article page, by reading the current article, there is sufficient detail in each section for the reader to get a good understanding of this topic. An area where more details could be added is the "diagnosis" section, where you can elaborate on the types of laboratory tests or imaging that are usually done to diagnose this syndrome. Adding some details on what the results mean for each of the laboratory tests and imaging could be helpful as well. The group also did a good job in using lay terms to describe catheters, chemicals produced, tryptophan, and alkaline terms such that readers who may not have a scientific background can understand. Lastly, the group also added a wide variety of secondary/tertiary material, as evident in their "references" section. Wendy xie00 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3B. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

Yes the claims made by the group did include secondary sources that are freely available for readers to refer to for more information. This is evident in the "references" section, where the DOI numbers of the articles are included such that the readers can be directed to the article when it is clicked on. All of the links work; however, there are citations that are repeats of the same source. Wendy xie00 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person C: Iwill95 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

Yes, most of the edits have substantially improved the article in terms of understanding while also following the guiding framework. All edits made thus far are clear and impartial. There could be a bit more attention put towards ensuring information is being sourced from systematic reviews & meta-analyses (i.e. - suggest avoiding the case report added to the treatment section) as these are the most robust sources of data. I appreciated the addition of images & captions, as this further facilitated understanding of the syndrome. In all, the edits made a notable impact, leading to a much more robust topic page. Iwill95 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The groups’ goals included adding additional detail to existing sections, adding more secondary & tertiary sources, and ensuring more ‘lay-language’ was used throughout. The group did great work in terms of adding detail to existing sections, particularly in the prevention, epidemiology, & history sections. Many more secondary & tertiary sources were added during the groups edits, with the number of citations nearly doubling from before the article was edited until now. With a topic as complex as this, the group did as well as was feasible in keeping language understandable to the average layperson. In instances like these, it is helpful to consistently link complex terms to their respective wikipedia topic pages for those who may not understand to easily learn more. I saw this done throughout. Iwill95 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Most of the edits made were consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. Most edits were made with citations directly following to substantiate the content written. However, some citations may have been misplaced. There were also some adjectives added that may have added an air of subjectivity to the style of language (i.e. “This ‘rare’ syndrome…” beginning the “History” section; may be best to let epidemiological statistics speak for themselves). Lastly, there seems to have been a typo or 2 (i.e. “Indirubin dissolved in plastic” in lead section; I believe the group may have intended to state “Indirubin dissolves in plastic”). Iwill95 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person D: Pvedam (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Yes, I would definitely say that overall, the group's edits do substantially improve the article. The edits are very thorough and provide the reader with a clear picture and overview of purple urine bag syndrome, including several different components of the disease itself. This includes a description of signs and symptoms, pathophysiology with pictures to help the reader understand in more detail, as well as treatment and prevention. There is a clear flow to help the understanding of the material itself, including grammar and the organization and structure of how the article is written. Pvedam (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

I would say that overall the group did significantly achieve its overall goals for improvement, such as adding in depth secondary sources to verify everything, as well as writing important and well-organized information with an easy flow for the reader's understanding. I felt that they did a great job on the treatment, pathophysiology, and prevention sections of the article since there were a lot of new information added on as well as reliable sources. Some improvement could have been in their diagnosis and prognosis sections of the article, since those had significantly less information, since this could definitely help the reader's understanding of the article as well. Pvedam (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

The edits did appear to be formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style with citations that helped the reader to understand where the information came from and to determine themselves if the sources were significant and reliable. The sources all link to reputable sources for the most part, including DOI numbers which are indicative of the information being from academic journals. Pvedam (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]