Wikipedia:Peer review/Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis/archive1

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently expanded this page to comply with WP:MEDMOS, and significantly expanded the content and references. I feel it's a bit too complicated for the average reader, particularly 'Diagnosis' and 'Treatment'. I would appreciate input and changes from those who feel they can reduce the complexity of the page, along with any other changes you feel are important.

Thanks, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll give it a go. Not in the medical field, so am only going to comment as an average reader looking for information. Since I'm not conversant in the field, I will have to assume that you are, and know what you're writing about. I'm completely unfamiliar with 90% of the terms you use.

Lead section.

First, there are no citations as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, not that you need many, but I could see 2 or 3 in the last 2 paragraphs.

You might want to add a sentence regarding Epidemiology.

Okay, this could just be my ignorance, but in the second sentence in the last paragraph, while the other items listed seem to refer to procedures/treatment, the clause, "raised blood levels of IgE and eosinophils" seems to relate to symptoms. Might want to reword (or, as I said, could simply be my ignorance)

Other than that, very well written. Easy to read, even to those not familiar with medical terminology.

Signs and Symptoms. Pretty perfect. No issues.

Pathophysiology. Very well written, so I'm going to be very picky.

First sentence, you might want to give a comparison, to help those not that conversant with the topic.

Second paragraph, second sentence. Might restructure it to say, "These include both immune factors (such as atopy or immunogenic HLA-restricted phenotypes),[9][10] and genetic factors..." It's just a matter of style, but usually I see the "as well as" at the end of a list longer than 2 items. It's not wrong, just style.

In the third sentence, does it "permit" or "result" in germination?

regarding reducing the complexity, it the entire section you only parenthetically explain one term, Necrosis. If this article is directed at physicians or clinicians, than I'm sure it's fine, but if you want to decrease the complexity, you might lead with common terms and put the more technical terms in parentheses.

Diagnosis

The first sentence needs expansion and explanation. Is the medical community leaning one way or another? Is it evenly split among all the different alternatives? Are the different methods discussed ALL the methods? Or only the most accepted?

In the first sentence under blood tests, you need a comma after ABPA in the parenthetical expression.

Treatment

First sentence, diseases needs to be plural, since in the example at the end of the sentence you reference two.

In the second paragraph, second sentence, I feel a "therefore" clause is warranted after your "however" comment about the studies regarding steroids.

The third paragraph: the sentence regarding itraconazole outweighing the risks of prednisone doesn't seem to make sense. Is it better than prednisone since there are fewer risks, fewer potential side-effects? (or again, is this just my ignorance on the subject)?

Fourth paragraph, the use of two "whilsts" is somewhat redundant. Might rephrase the end of the sentence to "during corticosteroid treatment", or something like that.

On the whole, other than being unfamiliar with the technical terms, this section read very well, and was easy to follow.

Epidemiology

I would expand this section, if possible to discuss any possible reasons for the disparity in the condition in different parts of the world. Is it simply based on population?

On the whole, it's very well referenced and well organized. Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope it helps somewhat. Onel5969 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)