Talk:Miscarriage

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Jacklyn.Ang, Cpktruong, Emilyplasencia, Maludino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit unsure by reading the article.

Is it considered a miscarriage if the body simply absorbs the zygote/embryo and it never gets expelled by the body?★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the following

The text is "Bleeding during pregnancy may be referred to as a threatened miscarriage. Of those who seek clinical treatment for bleeding during pregnancy, about half will miscarry."

The ref is Everett C (1997). "Incidence and outcome of bleeding before the 20th week of pregnancy: Prospective study from general practice". BMJ. 315 (7099): 32–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7099.32. PMC 2127042. PMID 9233324.

Comment was "This is NOT what the abstract says. It says in a certain study, half miscarried. It is NOT a prediction. This is a serious subject and should be treated with more respect. What may be needed is additional, better sources."

The abstract says "Bleeding occurred in one fifth of recognised pregnancies before the 20th week and over half of these miscarried." Were does WP say it is predictive?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Thanks for asking, although my comments seem to have disappeared. By saying half -will- miscarry, the text is taking a predictive stance. It is not reflective of the fact that what the abstract reported was what happened in one study. Curdigirl (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c Goals

1. Add additional risk factors, including medications, that increase risk of miscarriage
2. Expand upon chemotherapy induced miscarriage

 Maludino(talk) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Group 7B Reviews

1) The edits about live vaccinations substantially improve this article. A suggestion to further improve this article would be to list all the live vaccines for the general public's attention.

2) The first goal was met; however, the second goal should be revisited if time permits.

3) Prompt: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral POV? Yes, the edits made were neutral and unbiased. Jessicabee55 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7b Student Review

The information on immunizations and pregnancy categories improved the article. I agree that a list of live vaccinations would be beneficial. A list of the Category X drugs or clarification whether the list under the “medications” section is composed entirely of category X drugs would be also be helpful.

The first goal was met. Further research on chemotherapy drugs would improve the article.

Are the points verifiable with secondary sources that are readily available? Secondary sources were reputable and could be easily found. Alicewu95 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7B Student Review of Group 7C's goals

1. This article met the goals of Wikipedia's peer review framework. Every contribution looks well-formatted and is cited.

2. The first goal of adding additional factors was met, and much appreciated in the "Immunizations" section. The second goal, however, of "chemotherapy" was not met by the group and no change was listed for the section.

3. I was impressed by the overall formatting, use of citations, use of hyperlinks, and simplifying the information into brief and understandable chunks. That being said, there is great opportunity in contributing to the article further such as explaining the specifics of high-risk drugs, adding a table for the risk-of-miscarriage drugs and their effect, etc.Wrd530 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Fanny's Peer Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The edits did improve the article.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The first goal met their first goal. The second goal has not been achieved yet.

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes, the edits are formatted correctly.

Fannnypack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}

With respect to this text

"The FDA has classified medications into pregnancy categories which may increase the risk of fetal damage, including miscarriage. For example, atorvastatin, a pregnancy category x drug, is contraindicated in pregnant women."

The FDA per the second source has stopped using these letters. Plus nowhere does it mention atorvastatin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

How does this relate to prevention?

"For example, the presence of chronic stress from socioeconomic status can be a contributing factor."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Reversion

Hi Kstern, I noticed you undid an edit to this article and questioned whether it was done maliciously or not. I can assure you that it was not done maliciously, as the editor in question was a participant in one of our programs where we teach medical professionals how to edit Wikipedia. Are there specific errors with the content you removed? It looks accurate and sufficiently cited by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Happy to discuss this edit further. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have undone this revision, as the previous content contains original research--from the source, "You can also arrange to have a burial" turned into into "Family and friends often conduct a memorial or burial service". Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Elysia (Wiki Ed) The edit made by TexasDoc320 removed an entire section of sourced content and replaced it with content exactly repeated from the section directly preceding it, as pointed out by Doc James when they reverted your reversion. It was probably an accident, but intent is sometimes difficult to discern here. Kstern (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it duplicated preexisting content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc James and Kstern apologies, I was going off the edit summary and should have looked closer at the article. Thanks! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)