This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive C‑class Mid‑importance 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 articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's Health High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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 HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's 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 Amniocentesis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Francesca.alcala.96, Mvirk422, Vivianle17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I've added a general cleanup template to this section. I don't question the intentions of the author of this section, but it should probably be worded more carefully and subtly, so as to avoid potential POV or factual problems. Thanks. Naptastic ( talk) 17:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The entire risk section needs to be cited from something. Who knows if anything there is valid?

The PROCEDURE section seems to be casually worded, especially in the last sentence (...You or your doctor...) Derekbd 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Added { { Refimprove } } tag. Derekbd 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding the risks of amniocentesis. I am not an expert but I have read a note at the gynecologist's where the management of the hospital asked doctors to inform patients about the 2% risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis. Before that the official number was 1%. They even stated they did 200 tests last year and had 3 miscarriages as a direct result and 1 as a more complicated but related reason. Please somebody get this right and include the sources. I think it is important. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drevokocur ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have read a while ago (a study) that the complications rate varies with the physician's experience, and the numbers they cited varied widely, and could have explained the 2% vs. 0.5% difference. The new 0.06% number is new, and may have been obtained in a specialty clinic with high throughput. Milliemchi ( talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

A note at the Gynecologists that you read once and remember is hardly evidence of a conclusive study. It could just be that one of the doctors at that one hospital were careless, or any number of things.Pstanton 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy between the figures on this article and the chorionic villus sampling article. The CVS one says that they're effectively as safe as each other, whereas this article says CVS is more dangerous (which doesn't tally with the figures given on the CVS page). Brammers ( talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Get rid of the Pain section, its 2 short sentences, and the information isn't cited and pretty dubious in any case. Pstanton 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton ( talk • contribs)

The article does not mention the use of amniocentesis to test for lung maturity when there is a possibility of preterm delivery. This should be added. Milliemchi ( talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

In the Encyclopedia of International Development (ed Tim Forsyth Routledge 2005) there is an entry on Amniocentesis (sex-selection). The entry argues that Amniocentesis has become prevalent in some cultures (China and India are mentioned). The results of the test are then used as the basis for decisions about abortion. Using Amniocentesis to aid sex-selection is then a major contributor to there being millions of missing women. Would there be any problems with me adding something about this? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)) reply

There is a request at Requested articles for a page on post procedure care after Amnio. I think that should redirect here, but there isn't any discussion of that. It is needed. BakerStMD  T| C 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amniocentesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516200040/http://www.health.harvard.edu/diagnostic-tests/amniosentesis.htm to http://www.health.harvard.edu/diagnostic-tests/amniosentesis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amniocentesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111035407/http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/stem_cells/ to http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/stem_cells/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111035235/http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/scientific_updates/ to http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/scientific_updates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Our goals include:

• Revising the introduction paragraph to make defining the procedure read more smoothly
• Creating a history section to flesh out the origin and development of amniocenteses
• Validate the risk section with sources and include recent additions\
• Elaborate on the "Procedure" section to include more in depth description of the procedure as well as pre and post considerations when electing to have an amniocentesis performed
• Reformat the "Medical Uses" section to categorize uses based on condition
• Elaborate on the stem cells section to provide information about what can/has been done in regards to stems cells derived via amniocentesis

205.154.255.164 ( talk) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Our goals include:

• Revising the introduction paragraph to make defining the procedure read more smoothly
• Creating a history section to flesh out the origin and development of amniocentesis
• Validate the risk section with sources and include recent additions
• Elaborate on the "Procedure" section to include more in depth description of the procedure as well as pre and post considerations when electing to have an amniocentesis performed
• Reformat the "Medical Uses" section to categorize uses based on condition

Mvirk422 ( talk) 20:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
- Yes.
2, Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
- Yes, their overall goals for improvement have been met. This group has exceeded their overall goals for improving this article.
3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
- Yes, their submissions are neutral.
Mquindoy ( talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Group 8c has successfully achieved its stated goals by adding to the article in a manner that incorporates clear structuring; neutral language; balanced view points; and reliable references. Xmrlmem ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Using the www.plagiarisma.net website, I found no evidence of plagiarism among the newly added content. Xmrlmem ( talk) 01:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The group substantially added to the improvement of this article adding a significant amount of text as well as sections. The group has achieved its overall goal for improvement to a significant degree. The edits are formatted in a consistent way with Wikipedia’s manual of style. Docwoods12 ( talk) 13:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikichi2, Plut0goodboi, Gfg217 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nzahid, Isiah.Duggan, AubreyPMR.

— Assignment last updated by AubreyPMR ( talk) 09:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Peer Review For Amniocentesis.

Very Strong history and background of the explained medical procedure. Easily readable with relevant medical language. The history, indications, and steps of procedure detailed very well and easily to follow. Things that can be added are about how many amniocenteses are performed per year in the United States and what medical professionals are trained in the ability to perform these procedures (OB/GYN's - Interventional Radiologists). Isiah.Duggan ( talk) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Milepost Date By the time I go to bed on this date I will have…

Introduction Mon 8/8

• Completed all 9 assigned Wiki Ed training modules
• Begun thinking about which article I want to work on this month
• Familiarized myself with Wikiproject Medicine’s project page
  

Inquiry Small Group #1 Mon 8/29

• Assigned Sections of the Amniocentesis Page
• Gabby: Introduction, History and Prenatal Sex Discernment and Sex-Selective Abortion
• Thu: Medical Uses and Stem Cells
• Chioma: Risks and Procedures
  

Interim work 8/29 – 9/11

• Preliminary Research
• Create Bibliography(s)
• Discussed Workplan as a group and development teamwork strategy and comradery
  

Inquiry Small Group #2 Mon 9/12

• Assigned Peer Reviewers
• Completed edits on Amniocentesis
• Set deadline for edit completion and peer review completion
  

Interim work 9/13 – 9/18

• Conduct Peer Review of Alcohol and Cancer
• Work on Amniocentesis Final Presentation
  

Inquiry Small Group #3 Mon 9/19

• Present

Wikichi2 ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)@Wikichi2 reply

Great work on updating this Wiki Page! I thought the additions that you all made were very valuable and relevant.

In terms of feedback, I agree that the use of gender-inclusive language could be improved.

Additionally, I think there could be improved caution with using medical jargon or including more hyperlinks to other articles. For example, readers might not know the terms "Rh" and "indication" (medical indication - I didn't know what this was until starting school)."

Overall, great job!! Nzahid ( talk) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello everyone! I am so excited to collaborate on the amniocentesis wiki article as part of my WikiProject Course. Below is my work plan for the duration of my course!

Work plan

• Edit article to follow the recommended structure and order for medical procedures, per the Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles
  • Lead Section
  • Medical Uses
  • Contraindications
  • Risks/Complications
  • Procedure/Technique
  • Recovery
  • History
  • Society and Culture
  • Special Populations
  • Other Animals

• Lead Section
  • Edit for conciseness and grammar
  • Evaluate for a neutral point of view
  • Briefly make clear why amniocentesis is the gold standard for chromosome testing
    • Find an appropriate reference for this point
  • Look for big-picture statistics on amniocentesis such as how many are performed per year in the United States
  • Make sure major points of the article are included in the lead section

• Medical Uses Section
  • Edit for conciseness and grammar
  • Assess and edit for use of medical jargon
  • Research current literature for any potential new subsection additions
  • Consider converting the “stem cells” section to a subsection of the medical uses section
    • Stem Cells:
      • Research this topic
      • Verify that this subsection has been adequately “cleaned up” and that it “avoids potential POV or factual problems,” per previous talk page posts
      • Assess all references and evaluate if they meet Wiki criteria
  • Current Subsections:
    • Genetic diagnosis
      • Expand on indications for amniocentesis for genetic diagnosis purposes
      • Elaborate on who the procedure is offered to and why and the different scenarios a pregnant person may receive the procedure
      • Compare and contrast alternatives to amniocentesis for genetic diagnosis and pros/cons of each in relation to amniocentesis
    • Lung development
      • Research this topic, including any new relevant research
      • Elaborate on what surfactant is and how it is relevant to fetal lung development
      • Verify fetal lung development test explanations and find citations for these
    • Infection
      • Expand on/further explain how amniocentesis can detect infections
      • Clarify medical jargon
      • Implications/benefits of detecting infections, particularly via amniocentesis
      • Look into including alternatives to amniocentesis for infection detection
    • Rh incompatibility
      • Elaborate on Rh incompatibility and implications
      • Clarify medical jargon
      • Explain how amniocentesis is used to diagnose Rh incompatibility
    • Decompression of polyhydramnios
      • Elaborate on polyhydramnios and its implications/risks
      • Explain process of decompression via amniocentesis
      • Clarify medical jargon, such as “decompression”
    • Preterm rupture of membranes
      • Research current literature on amniocentesis in the management of preterm rupture of membranes
        • Use findings from this research to expand on this section
        • How is amniocentesis useful in management of preterm rupture of membranes?
        • How does IL-6 elevation indicate that the fetus is at “high risk” and what is the fetus at “high risk” for?

• Contraindications
  • Research this topic
  • Add this section to article

• Risks/Complications
  • Edit for conciseness, grammar, and neutral tone
  • Add explanation for mechanism of miscarriage due to amniocentesis
  • Add a section on ACOG guidelines for physician approach to patient counseling
  • Assess references and evaluate if they meet Wiki criteria
  • New paragraph on social and psychological risks instead of a “social implications” section
    • Rewrite to be more concise and have a more neutral tone
  • Verify all statistical claims and edit if more current data exists

• Procedure/Technique
  • Edit for conciseness and grammar
  • Add what medical professionals are trained in the ability to perform these procedures
  • Initial paragraph and “needle insertion” subsection have redundancies - edit for conciseness
  • Keep the “Post procedure recommendations and analysis” section but move second paragraph to the new “recovery” section.
  • Consider adding statistics on % of amniocenteses performed that will find the most common abnormalities

• Recovery
  • Research this topic
  • Add this section to article if substantial literature is found
  • Some info in the “procedures” section that could be moved to this section

• History
  • Move this section so that it comes after the procedure or recovery section (depending on if the recovery section is added) in order to follow the recommended structure and order for medical procures, per the Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles
  • Edit for conciseness and grammar
  • Research the history of amniocentesis in order to fill in any missing gaps in this section
  • Read and assess references 5 and 6

• Society and Culture
  • Add this section
  • This section could incorporate the” current prenatal sex discernment and sex-selective abortion” section

• Special Populations
  • Research this topic
  • Add this section to article if substantial literature is found

• Other Animals
  • Research this topic
  • Add this section to article if substantial literature is found

• General Goals:
  • Go through each reference and assess if it is open access and whether it meets Wiki criteria
  • If not open access, look for alternative open access resources if possible

Medabloom ( talk) 17:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 October 2022 and 18 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medabloom ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rasika ucf.

— Assignment last updated by DrDexterN ( talk) 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

This article is so well written! I like how it begins with an overarching paragraph to describe amniocentesis but does not use too much medical jargon. Any medical terms used also have good descriptions in layman's words to assist readers with better grasping the concept. The article does a great job explaining the various diagnostic indications for amniocentesis, and I especially liked how detailed yet easy to read these sections were! The contraindications and risks/complications sections were also very well developed and gave a comprehensive look into this subject matter. Overall I think you did an amazing job writing this article, and your hard work really shows! Rasika ucf ( talk) 20:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply