This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article has not yet received a rating on the
importance scale.
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling.
There was at least one instance of repeated wikilinks that I saw, like linking to fetoscopy twice in the article. Words like "miscarriage" are linked later in the article even when they appear earlier on, so you might want to consider changing that. Also, a few other phrases like cesarean section might deserve a link.
I had trouble clarifying the citation used after "As an example, in the United States fetal viability typically occurs at about 24 weeks of gestation, and in Portugal it is at about 25 weeks." These statistics might be somewhere on the site, but the link in citations does not go directly to a page where they are.
In paragraph 2 under procedure, you might want to consider adding a bit about the risk of sampling in anterior position if you want to put in the risks for the posterior position.
there isn't any specific risk for sampling in the anterior position that is different from the general risks of the procedure which are already mentioned. This is why I did not mention risks for the anterior position specifically.
Akhan50699 (
talk)
19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Paragraph 5 under procedure could use a citation.
this was a paragraph previously added from a different user. I've deleted it because much of the information included was redundant.
Akhan50699 (
talk)
19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The sentence "PUBS has largely replaced fetoscopy, which has a much higher rate of miscarriage." in paragraph 6 under procedure could be taken out because you talk about it earlier in the article.
Last sentence of paragraph 2 or indications and contraindications is a little confusing; you say that the test shouldn't be done to prevent the fetus from getting HIV, but you also say that it should be done to see if the fetus has HIV.
*The single umbilical artery section is informative, but it has quite a bit of information that isn't as relevant to PUBS. You might want to consider making this a smaller part of procedure or risks.
usually many high end biology vocabulary terms are linked, just in case viewers who are unfamiliar with a word can easily click on them to get a definition
When reading the article as whole, I thought it was odd that the function of the umbilical cord wasn't defined until the very last section. Not sure the best way to fix, but it was strange when reading.
Under the history section, "...Adamsons reported the removal of a uterus in a fetus who had a buildup of fluid and ended up dying..." sounds like they removed the fetus' uterus. Maybe rephrase this sentence so it is a little clearer.
I'm not sure about the wikipedia rules for this, but in the history section, source 5 is cited 4 times in a row. It may be less cluttered to cite it once at the end of the sentences from that reference.
Combined a sentence to clean it up, but keep the references. I'm concerned about plagiarism if I don't leave it in, but I think it's clean up a little more.
Ecapelle (
talk)
01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)reply
In the second to last sentence of the history section, the needle is referred to as a "who" so maybe rearrange the sentence to say something like: "...with a needle and monitored its maneuvers with an ultrasound."
I noticed that a 1994 source is being used in the contraindications paragraph to summarize clinical guidelines. That doesn't meet
WP:MEDDATE, which asks for recent sources, such as those within the last several years, if possible. Might there be much more recent medical literature available? {{update}} and {{update inline}} could be used within the article to mark these issues if they aren't addressed.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx
22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I found some more recent literature on this section. It is difficult because these were not as detailed, and this procedure is not used as frequently with the medical advances of amniocentesis, chorionic villi, etc. Thank you for pointing that out though; I didn't even know about those guidelines.
Ecapelle (
talk)
17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment from Estephe9
While the procedure of PUBS is well explained, I think that some figures could be beneficial to help make this easier to understand. If not a picture or diagram of the entire procedure, at least an image of some of the different aspects of the procedure (tools, parts of the body involved, etc.).
Estephe9 (
talk)
18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree! Anam told me she was working on hand drawing a figure to post because there aren't any that are very readily available without copyrights, etc. Check back soon!
Ecapelle (
talk)
18:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from iamwillthinnes
Associated Risks section should be Associated risks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article has not yet received a rating on the
importance scale.
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling.
There was at least one instance of repeated wikilinks that I saw, like linking to fetoscopy twice in the article. Words like "miscarriage" are linked later in the article even when they appear earlier on, so you might want to consider changing that. Also, a few other phrases like cesarean section might deserve a link.
I had trouble clarifying the citation used after "As an example, in the United States fetal viability typically occurs at about 24 weeks of gestation, and in Portugal it is at about 25 weeks." These statistics might be somewhere on the site, but the link in citations does not go directly to a page where they are.
In paragraph 2 under procedure, you might want to consider adding a bit about the risk of sampling in anterior position if you want to put in the risks for the posterior position.
there isn't any specific risk for sampling in the anterior position that is different from the general risks of the procedure which are already mentioned. This is why I did not mention risks for the anterior position specifically.
Akhan50699 (
talk)
19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Paragraph 5 under procedure could use a citation.
this was a paragraph previously added from a different user. I've deleted it because much of the information included was redundant.
Akhan50699 (
talk)
19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The sentence "PUBS has largely replaced fetoscopy, which has a much higher rate of miscarriage." in paragraph 6 under procedure could be taken out because you talk about it earlier in the article.
Last sentence of paragraph 2 or indications and contraindications is a little confusing; you say that the test shouldn't be done to prevent the fetus from getting HIV, but you also say that it should be done to see if the fetus has HIV.
*The single umbilical artery section is informative, but it has quite a bit of information that isn't as relevant to PUBS. You might want to consider making this a smaller part of procedure or risks.
usually many high end biology vocabulary terms are linked, just in case viewers who are unfamiliar with a word can easily click on them to get a definition
When reading the article as whole, I thought it was odd that the function of the umbilical cord wasn't defined until the very last section. Not sure the best way to fix, but it was strange when reading.
Under the history section, "...Adamsons reported the removal of a uterus in a fetus who had a buildup of fluid and ended up dying..." sounds like they removed the fetus' uterus. Maybe rephrase this sentence so it is a little clearer.
I'm not sure about the wikipedia rules for this, but in the history section, source 5 is cited 4 times in a row. It may be less cluttered to cite it once at the end of the sentences from that reference.
Combined a sentence to clean it up, but keep the references. I'm concerned about plagiarism if I don't leave it in, but I think it's clean up a little more.
Ecapelle (
talk)
01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)reply
In the second to last sentence of the history section, the needle is referred to as a "who" so maybe rearrange the sentence to say something like: "...with a needle and monitored its maneuvers with an ultrasound."
I noticed that a 1994 source is being used in the contraindications paragraph to summarize clinical guidelines. That doesn't meet
WP:MEDDATE, which asks for recent sources, such as those within the last several years, if possible. Might there be much more recent medical literature available? {{update}} and {{update inline}} could be used within the article to mark these issues if they aren't addressed.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx
22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I found some more recent literature on this section. It is difficult because these were not as detailed, and this procedure is not used as frequently with the medical advances of amniocentesis, chorionic villi, etc. Thank you for pointing that out though; I didn't even know about those guidelines.
Ecapelle (
talk)
17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment from Estephe9
While the procedure of PUBS is well explained, I think that some figures could be beneficial to help make this easier to understand. If not a picture or diagram of the entire procedure, at least an image of some of the different aspects of the procedure (tools, parts of the body involved, etc.).
Estephe9 (
talk)
18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree! Anam told me she was working on hand drawing a figure to post because there aren't any that are very readily available without copyrights, etc. Check back soon!
Ecapelle (
talk)
18:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from iamwillthinnes
Associated Risks section should be Associated risks.