A user with 14 edits. Account created on 19 February 2020.
10 March 2020
- 02:08 02:08, 10 March 2020 diff hist +4 m Fetal viability →Medical viability Tag: Visual edit
9 March 2020
- 15:59 15:59, 9 March 2020 diff hist +2,993 Fetal viability These changes address concerns about why there are discrepancies in rates, and also explains that doctors in the German study were not the decision makers of whether to resuscitate infants. It also says there were no differences in birth weight and singleton/multiples status for those resuscitated or not. This gives a thorough response to previous objections to the positive rates. It also addresses concerns on the talk page that previous entries were outdated and too U.S. centric. Tag: Visual edit
6 March 2020
- 02:46 02:46, 6 March 2020 diff hist +410 User talk:LakesideMiners →Hi there!
5 March 2020
- 20:28 20:28, 5 March 2020 diff hist +236 User talk:LakesideMiners →Hi there!: new section
- 20:26 20:26, 5 March 2020 diff hist +1,699 Talk:Fetal viability →New changes
2 March 2020
- 15:37 15:37, 2 March 2020 diff hist +1,640 Fetal viability Someone continues to insist on using an old table (with no scientific source listed) from the late 1990s available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180809230110/http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm. I am using the newest data. Tag: Visual edit
1 March 2020
- 20:12 20:12, 1 March 2020 diff hist +1,167 Fetal viability Addressed concerns of previous revision. Included stillbirth rates and selection bias considerations. Tag: Visual edit
29 February 2020
- 22:12 22:12, 29 February 2020 diff hist +584 Fetal viability User reverted back to older version that had data from the 1990s. This should not be used in place of data between 2010-2020. Neonatology care has significantly improved. Tag: Visual edit
28 February 2020
- 15:32 15:32, 28 February 2020 diff hist −2,333 Fetal viability This is outdated as survival rates for a 22 week infant can be 61%. Neonatologists in some countries give intensive care at 22 weeks. Tags: references removed Visual edit
- 15:22 15:22, 28 February 2020 diff hist −2,751 Fetal viability Deleted outdated information. Tags: references removed Visual edit
21 February 2020
- 06:24 06:24, 21 February 2020 diff hist +174 Fetal viability Edits clarified that data are based on infants born alive. Edits also clarified that rates are based on infants given intensive care. Tag: Visual edit
- 05:35 05:35, 21 February 2020 diff hist +29 m Fetal viability →Medical viability Tag: Visual edit
- 05:29 05:29, 21 February 2020 diff hist +530 Fetal viability Previous data were outdated, including a source using data from 1990s. Tag: Visual edit
19 February 2020
- 19:27 19:27, 19 February 2020 diff hist +2,826 Fetal viability Survival rate data have changed. Tag: Visual edit
A user with 14 edits. Account created on 19 February 2020.
10 March 2020
- 02:08 02:08, 10 March 2020 diff hist +4 m Fetal viability →Medical viability Tag: Visual edit
9 March 2020
- 15:59 15:59, 9 March 2020 diff hist +2,993 Fetal viability These changes address concerns about why there are discrepancies in rates, and also explains that doctors in the German study were not the decision makers of whether to resuscitate infants. It also says there were no differences in birth weight and singleton/multiples status for those resuscitated or not. This gives a thorough response to previous objections to the positive rates. It also addresses concerns on the talk page that previous entries were outdated and too U.S. centric. Tag: Visual edit
6 March 2020
- 02:46 02:46, 6 March 2020 diff hist +410 User talk:LakesideMiners →Hi there!
5 March 2020
- 20:28 20:28, 5 March 2020 diff hist +236 User talk:LakesideMiners →Hi there!: new section
- 20:26 20:26, 5 March 2020 diff hist +1,699 Talk:Fetal viability →New changes
2 March 2020
- 15:37 15:37, 2 March 2020 diff hist +1,640 Fetal viability Someone continues to insist on using an old table (with no scientific source listed) from the late 1990s available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180809230110/http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm. I am using the newest data. Tag: Visual edit
1 March 2020
- 20:12 20:12, 1 March 2020 diff hist +1,167 Fetal viability Addressed concerns of previous revision. Included stillbirth rates and selection bias considerations. Tag: Visual edit
29 February 2020
- 22:12 22:12, 29 February 2020 diff hist +584 Fetal viability User reverted back to older version that had data from the 1990s. This should not be used in place of data between 2010-2020. Neonatology care has significantly improved. Tag: Visual edit
28 February 2020
- 15:32 15:32, 28 February 2020 diff hist −2,333 Fetal viability This is outdated as survival rates for a 22 week infant can be 61%. Neonatologists in some countries give intensive care at 22 weeks. Tags: references removed Visual edit
- 15:22 15:22, 28 February 2020 diff hist −2,751 Fetal viability Deleted outdated information. Tags: references removed Visual edit
21 February 2020
- 06:24 06:24, 21 February 2020 diff hist +174 Fetal viability Edits clarified that data are based on infants born alive. Edits also clarified that rates are based on infants given intensive care. Tag: Visual edit
- 05:35 05:35, 21 February 2020 diff hist +29 m Fetal viability →Medical viability Tag: Visual edit
- 05:29 05:29, 21 February 2020 diff hist +530 Fetal viability Previous data were outdated, including a source using data from 1990s. Tag: Visual edit
19 February 2020
- 19:27 19:27, 19 February 2020 diff hist +2,826 Fetal viability Survival rate data have changed. Tag: Visual edit