User talk:Logan6465/sandbox

2020 Modifications- UCF College of Medicine WikiProject Workplan

Over the next month I will be revising and adding on to this article. The most recent editor, Alt201, did a fantastic job improving this content in 2018!

Here are some thoughts on the current state of the article:

The lead section is a concise intro but does not include article highlights which could help strengthen this section. Also, the second sentence's wording could be improved to simplify the routes of airway obstruction.

7 of the 8 sources (all of which are reliable) are books and therefore not easily accessible by the majority of the public. I even had trouble gaining access to these through my school's medical library. This makes verifying and/or clarifying the article info, as well as gaining further knowledge challenging for the reader. The one direct link to a source (eMedicine) is correct, but this website requires an account to be created in order to view the information, which may deter readers from venturing further into the only online source.

It is difficult to assess if all of the current sources are neutral or biased without reading the full text in addition to the section directly sourced. Sometimes book authors can be biased when writing about their field based on their own personal patient interactions and clinical outcomes. With the credentials of these authors and the fairly straightforward nature of this clinical presentation and subsequent management, I do not think biased sources will be an issue.

Overall structure is clear. Sections well-balanced with symptoms and treatments appropriately being the most detailed. Everything included is relevant and nothing is distracting in my opinion. There are no references to unnamed groups.

Coverage of the topic is neutral and has no biased claims that I can find.

There is brief mention of aspiration pneumonia in the symptoms section, but as this is a very prevalent problem especially in the growing elderly population today, I feel this could become it's own section to increase scope of this article.

In the diagnosis section, a brief explanation of why a negative chest xray cannot rule out this diagnosis is needed. The layman would not already know what materials show up on xrays so I think this could be better explained. When quickly trying to find a wikipage to link here to explain it, I could not find one that was simple enough at first glance to answer this question (ie the chest xray, xray, and echogenicity pages were very in depth scientifically but I could not find a clear section simply explaining what objects or materials show on xrays) so I think including a brief explanation here is appropriate.

I plan to do the following over the next 3 weeks:

1. Review current sources in addition to adding verifiable, easily accessible secondary sources and images. I plan to utilize evidence-based medical databases to find resources such as PubMed, Clinical Key, UpToDate, Epocrates, etc to find additional sources giving preference to those which are more accessible to the general public. For images I will use Wikimedia Commons and other images with free licenses. I will also work to ensure no close para-phrasing from the books are in the article once access is granted.

2. Create or add to sections discussing prevention, more detailed epidemiology, pertinent anatomy and physiology, complications of aspiration v treatment, clarifying emergent v inpatient v outpatient treatment algorithms and options (with diagrams), conversation on aspiration in the elderly, and anything else that comes up in my research. I will do my best to avoid medical jargon. When included, I will make sure to explain the term and/or incorporate a link to further information.

3. Work to increase the number of imbedded links for page previews of medical terms in order to increase reader comprehension.

4. As diagnostic imaging can be challenging to interpret by the general public, I will include arrows and detailed descriptions in the included photos. The first image of a child with an aspirated peanut in the right bronchus is a great inclusion, but it currently has a higher level description than expected for the general public to decipher. The second image of a larynx is interesting but it is difficult to orient oneself and visualize the meat fragment the description mentions. The third image is my favorite as the aspirated object is easy to locate and it is straightforward to picture the airway obstruction with its location, even for the non-medical reader. There can still be more added to the description such as where the coin is sitting anatomically and what material it is. This will help connect this image to the paragraph discussing chest xrays in the diagnosis section.

5. Check for any out of date information to ensure information included in the article is the most recent and accepted.

I hope these edits allow this high-importance page to move up on the quality scale.

Please feel free to message me with any questions or concerns!

(Logan6465 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan6465 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]