Talk:Frailty syndrome

UCSF CIC Workplan

UCSF CIC Workplan

Foundations 2 2024, Group 22 Goals & Proposed Edits

Our Goals for this article include:

• Form citation and add reference by the end of the first class
• Make edits 3+ days during week 1
• Add 5,000 characters each
• Add 6+ references each
• Create slide deck of this article

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimNEdits (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 

Peer Review

I think you all have done an excellent job modifying the page! I do think it would perhaps be helpful to expand on the mechanisms of non-surgical management, make the details more granular, and relate this management towards improving surgical outcomes (i.e. discussing how improving frailty cause mitigate adverse surgical outcomes).

Peer Review from Golfer's Vasiculitus: aernda1001:

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, this group's edits improve the article. There is an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes what frality syndrome is. The added information such as major contributors to frality adds to the wiki page in a neutral way, while introducing specific topics. For example, the 'definition' section was added to clearly explain what the difference between frality versus aging and how it affects different populations. I like how the group was able to add relevant, statistical information comparing patients in different countries with this syndrome. All clinical trails are up to date and easy to access.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, this group seemed to have completed their goals for this article. There were an adequate amount of citations and each member logged in 3+ a week in order to complete the word count and make necessary edits.

3a) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain] Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. Even when adding information to the epidemiology section, this group adds information that is unbiased and touches upon a wide range of risk factors that can contribute to fralitly.

--Aerdna1001 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review from Golfer's Vasiculitus: Lar.ngu.UCSF:

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] The group explains the topic of frailty thoroughly. It was especially helpful that they embedded definitions for technically dense portions of the Wikipedia page contributing to the readability for a user who may visit this Wikipedia page without a biology or healthcare background. The article is neutral and shares multiple perspectives from secondary sources. It has overall been improved

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] The group's goals and plans for the page were to add citations and 5,000 characters each. The group added many insightful sources that were reputable and the depth of information and clarity were greatly improved. I believe the group achieved their overall goals for improvement.

3c) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain] The group utilized headings and subheadings to organize the information which is consistent with the manual of style. However, I noticed that the citation style changed slightly within the page. There were some parts in which specific studies or sources were referenced within using an in-text citation and other times only a footnote was used. This could be changed for consistency. I also appreciate that the group includes both an introduction and a summary at the end which is also consistent with the Wikipedia's manual of style. Because there are so many headings and subheadings, I could suggest that the major topics discussed be introduced in the introduction briefly to help readers identify if this will be a helpful source for them quickly. The article also maintains a consistent tone and uses common language.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar.ngu.UCSF (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review from Golfer's Vasiculitus: elizabethardennguyen:

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, the edits do substantially improve the article. The content is comprehensive, well-structured, and covered different aspects of frailty syndrome. The article now provides a thorough overview of the the topic, which is likely more informative than previous versions.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] The current article seems to have achieved significant improvements. It provides a detailed and well-rounded examination of the frailty, incorporating research and different perspectives. The sections on prevention, management, and ongoing clinical trials shows the article aims to be current and practical.

3d) Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain] The article generally uses inclusive language and avoids biased terminology. However, there are a few areas where it could be more inclusive: the article mentions sex differences but doesn't discuss potential socioeconomic or racial/ethnic differences; the article could improve by more discussion on how frailty affects diverse populations. ElizabethArdenNguyen (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review from Golfer's Vasiculitus: M. Nguyen, UCSF (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, this group's work does substantially improve the article. Each section of the article is sufficiently fleshed out and based on strong evidence and sources. I particularly like the "Prevention" section as it clearly explains common ways to reduce frailty in patient-friendly language. I also like the section on "Biological and physiological mechanisms" as it is highly detailed and supported by many references. Overall, I think this group has done a great job improving this article.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, I believe that this group has done a good job achieving the goals they set out for article improvement. There are many edits and the article is lengthy, so I am sure the 5000 character goal was met. There are also a significant amount of references included.

3b) Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain] Yes, this group has done a fantastic job supporting their claims with cited secondary sources. Essentially all claims made in the article are supported by cited sources, which adds to the robustness of the claims made. The sources included are available and easily accessible. M. Nguyen, UCSF (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlexaoroszucsfpharmDstudent, Sammybnguyen, A.Obanor, SimNEdits (article contribs). Peer reviewers: M. Nguyen, UCSF, Lar.ngu.UCSF, Aerdna1001, ElizabethArdenNguyen.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes of group:

Alexa:

- rewrite introduction to be more specific & concise definition on frailty

- add definition section to clarify frailty vs aging

- increase references throughout

- add more prevalence data to epidemiology section & references

- add a summary

AlexaoroszucsfpharmDstudent (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sim:

- add Major Contributors of Frailty section

- added heart failure section

- updated Major contributors of frailty

- added Clinical Frailty Scale

- added Edmonton Frail Scale

- added Electronic Frail Scale (eFI)

SimNEdits (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Amen:

- added more information to sex differences and rewrote parts of section

- made clarifications to biological and physical mechanisms section and added more details

- added more information to surgical outcomes section and rewrote confusing sections

Sammy:

- expanded on the signs, treatment, and management sections

- added citations from literature reviews to support claims

- rephrased some existing sentences to make the overall flow better