![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Prelabor rupture of membranes.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cmascoe,
Nrnittur. Peer reviewers:
Hpot90,
Bae18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a very good article. There are one or two factual inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.142.250 ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have learned that PROM means Prelabour Rupture Of Membranes, and that PPROM means Preterm Prelabour Rupture Of Membranes. The word "premature" is not a good word to use here because it opens up for various misunderstandings. The article should be rewritten without using "premature". The words Preterm and Prelabour are self-explanatory and makes it easier to understand what this is about. This means that the name of the whole article entry should be changed. Gbwi ( talk) 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference that supports the emotional state of fear as a risk factor is a letter. This letter reports the study published here: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfxgmmxk_37gj9rt7dj Emisanle ( talk) 6:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have started editing this article and over the next few weeks will be attempting to clean up some of the errors and ambiguity that has been previously mentioned on this talk page. I plan to reorganize and add updated information using Beckmann's Obstetrics and Gynecology, Williams Obsetetrics, and Current Diagnosis & Treatment textbooks as well as the updated ACOG practice bulletin, cochrane reviews and meta analyses. If anyone is watching this page, please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions. Thanks. Dorafriedman ( talk) 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dorafriedman. You've done a wonderful job restructuring the article to follow the Wiki Medicine Manual of Style more closely. I think there has obviously been a lot of great effort to make the language more accessible and simple, though I think sometimes this results in unnecessarily complex sentences. For example, the first line of the lead has over 60 words and 6 commas, and can be a bit difficult to follow. Since I think including definitions for more complicated terms or concepts can be helpful, perhaps it'd be helpful to break some of the longer sentences into two distinct sentences. It also seems to get a bit more medical jargon-y and technical towards the diagnosis/management sections, which tend to be heavily read sections other than the lead. I think you added some very meaningful references, including the Beckmann book, various ACOG practice bulletins, and Cochrane reviews. Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems like some of these are cited multiple times, such as reference 1 and 11 referring to the same Obstetrics & Gynecology Practice bulletin 139, and Beckmann being referenced twice (I realize they are different years, but maybe using the most recent one would be more valuable, if that information is still there?). Overall I think you've really done a lot of improve the content of this article, and I'm sure everyone who will access this important article in the future appreciates it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sho2014 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
For our WikiProject Medicine course, we suggest the following changes to this article
We welcome any suggestions! Cmascoe ( talk) 11:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have a question about making edits to specific facts. For example, under "classification," prolonged ROM is defined as rupture 24 hours before onset of labor, however, I have seen two separate sources that classify prolonged ROM as 18 hours prior to delivery (Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology 6e) OR rupture 24 hours prior to delivery (Elsevier Point of Care). How would you recommend clarifying this? Nrnittur ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
RfC was initially not neutral. Both heading and question were changed well after discussion had begun. Links are now broken and contributions are no longer on the same question. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On describing RCOG guidelines, should it include that they are "based on expert opinion not based on clinical evidence"? Boundarylayer ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Background to RfCRecently I removed the unsourced suggestion that the (RCOG) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines referenced in this article, are to use the other editor's phrase : "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence..." Here. I removed this curious phrase, as what is this particularly unsourced statement suggesting? That the RCOG, are not following clinical evidence when making these guidelines? This seems to be a pretty extra-ordinary claim. WP:MEDASSESS gives great weight to "clinical guidelines". Especially such guidelines that have had zero reliable opinions ever describing them as "[not] based...on clinical evidence". Rather than beginning a talk page discussion, as is the usual procedure. I considered it wiser to go directly towards a request for comment, considering the reply I received in relation to this matter. Here. With the editor who added this phrase, threatening to begin ban proceedings and other erroneous things, you can hopefully appreciate that a Rfc was considered the best port of call. In regard to policy, if there is some existing policy to describe medically uncontroversial guidelines in this peculiar fashion, I would like to see precedence of it. As far as I can tell, guidelines are not supposed to be described in this bizarre fashion? I searched wikipedia and have not found another example of this phrase "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence". Anywhere else. Boundarylayer ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment, Jytdog is clearly right on a factual level, however I agree with Boundarylayer that the phrase might easily be mis-understood by the general reader. Is there a way of rephrasing along the lines of "has not been corroborated/tested/similar by clinical trials"? Pincrete ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There comes a point where one can no longer blindly assume good faith. The reality is Boundarylayer is hell-bent on introducing an anti-choice PoV to Wikipedia. A "victory" on this article (via the sledgehammer method of a full RfC on one sentence rather than discussing on the talk page!) will be used to feed into changes to the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, presumably in preparation for articles relating to Ireland's forthcoming referendum to Repeal the Eighth Amendment to Ireland's constitution. As evidence, please see the staggering volume of contributions by this one author - in terms of both number of edits and wall-of-text size of those edits - to this page, a 'sandbox' page to rehearse arguments, and in particular to Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar. Forum shopping has been used (without notifying other involved editors), wikihounding of at least one other involved editor has taken place, and a block for personal attacks has been issued. In short, this editor should be receiving a topic ban, not be indulged with this RfC. (Which, again, Boundarylayer didn't bother informing other involved editors about... so pinging RexxS and Ebelular.) On the substantive issue of the RfC, Boundarylayer seems to not quite get sourcing. E.g., they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen for obvious reasons; and, for example, that the Irish newspaper of record and other broadsheets are "tabloids" and not RS... at least until such time as he found a pro-life opinion piece in one and apparently wants to use a quote sourced to "a nurse friend" to attack the standard of public healthcare in Ireland, in which case it presumably stops being a "tabloid" and becomes a RS broadsheet again. In conclusion - level 4 evidence is expert opinion. Not drawing attention to the fact that it is not based on clinical trials would - per Pincrete and Jytdog serve to mislead the reader. That should not happen and I can only conclude that the intention is, in fact, to mislead the reader. Jytdog's wording is fine. A form of words such as either Pincrete's or "based on expert opinion rather than clinical evidence" also works for me. Apologies for the long response. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Hey guys! Great job!! Seems like you guys made a solid amount of edits with great sources! Everything looks really good to me!
One thing that did stand out is the description of the latency period. A typical reader may be confused by the explanation there so it may be helpful to describe the relationship without relying on the understanding of 'inverse relationships.' However overall it seems like you guys made a significant improvement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpot90 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Prelabor rupture of membranes.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cmascoe,
Nrnittur. Peer reviewers:
Hpot90,
Bae18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a very good article. There are one or two factual inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.142.250 ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have learned that PROM means Prelabour Rupture Of Membranes, and that PPROM means Preterm Prelabour Rupture Of Membranes. The word "premature" is not a good word to use here because it opens up for various misunderstandings. The article should be rewritten without using "premature". The words Preterm and Prelabour are self-explanatory and makes it easier to understand what this is about. This means that the name of the whole article entry should be changed. Gbwi ( talk) 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference that supports the emotional state of fear as a risk factor is a letter. This letter reports the study published here: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfxgmmxk_37gj9rt7dj Emisanle ( talk) 6:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have started editing this article and over the next few weeks will be attempting to clean up some of the errors and ambiguity that has been previously mentioned on this talk page. I plan to reorganize and add updated information using Beckmann's Obstetrics and Gynecology, Williams Obsetetrics, and Current Diagnosis & Treatment textbooks as well as the updated ACOG practice bulletin, cochrane reviews and meta analyses. If anyone is watching this page, please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions. Thanks. Dorafriedman ( talk) 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dorafriedman. You've done a wonderful job restructuring the article to follow the Wiki Medicine Manual of Style more closely. I think there has obviously been a lot of great effort to make the language more accessible and simple, though I think sometimes this results in unnecessarily complex sentences. For example, the first line of the lead has over 60 words and 6 commas, and can be a bit difficult to follow. Since I think including definitions for more complicated terms or concepts can be helpful, perhaps it'd be helpful to break some of the longer sentences into two distinct sentences. It also seems to get a bit more medical jargon-y and technical towards the diagnosis/management sections, which tend to be heavily read sections other than the lead. I think you added some very meaningful references, including the Beckmann book, various ACOG practice bulletins, and Cochrane reviews. Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems like some of these are cited multiple times, such as reference 1 and 11 referring to the same Obstetrics & Gynecology Practice bulletin 139, and Beckmann being referenced twice (I realize they are different years, but maybe using the most recent one would be more valuable, if that information is still there?). Overall I think you've really done a lot of improve the content of this article, and I'm sure everyone who will access this important article in the future appreciates it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sho2014 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
For our WikiProject Medicine course, we suggest the following changes to this article
We welcome any suggestions! Cmascoe ( talk) 11:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have a question about making edits to specific facts. For example, under "classification," prolonged ROM is defined as rupture 24 hours before onset of labor, however, I have seen two separate sources that classify prolonged ROM as 18 hours prior to delivery (Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology 6e) OR rupture 24 hours prior to delivery (Elsevier Point of Care). How would you recommend clarifying this? Nrnittur ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
RfC was initially not neutral. Both heading and question were changed well after discussion had begun. Links are now broken and contributions are no longer on the same question. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On describing RCOG guidelines, should it include that they are "based on expert opinion not based on clinical evidence"? Boundarylayer ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Background to RfCRecently I removed the unsourced suggestion that the (RCOG) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines referenced in this article, are to use the other editor's phrase : "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence..." Here. I removed this curious phrase, as what is this particularly unsourced statement suggesting? That the RCOG, are not following clinical evidence when making these guidelines? This seems to be a pretty extra-ordinary claim. WP:MEDASSESS gives great weight to "clinical guidelines". Especially such guidelines that have had zero reliable opinions ever describing them as "[not] based...on clinical evidence". Rather than beginning a talk page discussion, as is the usual procedure. I considered it wiser to go directly towards a request for comment, considering the reply I received in relation to this matter. Here. With the editor who added this phrase, threatening to begin ban proceedings and other erroneous things, you can hopefully appreciate that a Rfc was considered the best port of call. In regard to policy, if there is some existing policy to describe medically uncontroversial guidelines in this peculiar fashion, I would like to see precedence of it. As far as I can tell, guidelines are not supposed to be described in this bizarre fashion? I searched wikipedia and have not found another example of this phrase "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence". Anywhere else. Boundarylayer ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment, Jytdog is clearly right on a factual level, however I agree with Boundarylayer that the phrase might easily be mis-understood by the general reader. Is there a way of rephrasing along the lines of "has not been corroborated/tested/similar by clinical trials"? Pincrete ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There comes a point where one can no longer blindly assume good faith. The reality is Boundarylayer is hell-bent on introducing an anti-choice PoV to Wikipedia. A "victory" on this article (via the sledgehammer method of a full RfC on one sentence rather than discussing on the talk page!) will be used to feed into changes to the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, presumably in preparation for articles relating to Ireland's forthcoming referendum to Repeal the Eighth Amendment to Ireland's constitution. As evidence, please see the staggering volume of contributions by this one author - in terms of both number of edits and wall-of-text size of those edits - to this page, a 'sandbox' page to rehearse arguments, and in particular to Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar. Forum shopping has been used (without notifying other involved editors), wikihounding of at least one other involved editor has taken place, and a block for personal attacks has been issued. In short, this editor should be receiving a topic ban, not be indulged with this RfC. (Which, again, Boundarylayer didn't bother informing other involved editors about... so pinging RexxS and Ebelular.) On the substantive issue of the RfC, Boundarylayer seems to not quite get sourcing. E.g., they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen for obvious reasons; and, for example, that the Irish newspaper of record and other broadsheets are "tabloids" and not RS... at least until such time as he found a pro-life opinion piece in one and apparently wants to use a quote sourced to "a nurse friend" to attack the standard of public healthcare in Ireland, in which case it presumably stops being a "tabloid" and becomes a RS broadsheet again. In conclusion - level 4 evidence is expert opinion. Not drawing attention to the fact that it is not based on clinical trials would - per Pincrete and Jytdog serve to mislead the reader. That should not happen and I can only conclude that the intention is, in fact, to mislead the reader. Jytdog's wording is fine. A form of words such as either Pincrete's or "based on expert opinion rather than clinical evidence" also works for me. Apologies for the long response. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Hey guys! Great job!! Seems like you guys made a solid amount of edits with great sources! Everything looks really good to me!
One thing that did stand out is the description of the latency period. A typical reader may be confused by the explanation there so it may be helpful to describe the relationship without relying on the understanding of 'inverse relationships.' However overall it seems like you guys made a significant improvement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpot90 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)