Talk:Neonatal infection

Thank you, thank you!

Thank you to all the editors who helped to get this article to a stub, then a start, then a C class article. And now it is going to be a "Did you know...." article listed on the main page within a week!

• Gandydancer
• WolfmanSF
• Ozzie10aaaa
• Nihiltres
• The Rambling Man
• Delldot
• Wikid77
• CV9933
• Laoris
• Wouterstomp

The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

excellent article thanks to you Barbara (WVS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

The article lead says "Though antibiotics can be effective and methods of pathogen identification is faster" but I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps faster than it used to be?... Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the text says:Group B Streptococcus are typically identified as the cause of the majority of early-onset infections in the neonate.[4] This pathogen is vertically transmitted (transmitted directly from the mother) to the infant.[6] Enteric bacilli that originate from the digestive system of the mother have become as prevalent as the group B Streptococcus pathogens and are currently as likely to cause infection. This has me confused. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Me, too! I think I've possibly cleared-up the confusion regarding antibiotics and methods of pathogen identification. I also think that by listing the 3 main causes in the 1st para of the lede, it covers what is discussed in the body. It can certainly be expanded/approved upon if needed. There's enough information in the body to justify a bit more detail in the lede. I added a bit about membrane rupture in the second para of the lede because I didn't include it in the first para, but in doing so, I didn't intend to change the meaning of anything. It's actually an addition so the part about colonization that was previously in the 2nd para of the lede could be added back, hopefully with clarification as to what it references. I removed it thinking we had most of it covered in the first para re:transplacentaly. Atsme^📞📧 23:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, I appreciate your help so far and the things you have brought need to be clarified. The article still needs a lot of work and improvements. Please come back regularly to check up on it and help out. Believe it or not, there is still a lot to add to the article. When you have worked on an article as intently as I have on this one, sometimes you stop seeing the trees because of the forest! (reverse pun). It is good that you have pointed out the things that are not clear. I have to try to identify causes and risks which can be tricky sometimes. So mentioning membrane rupture is really not any more important than the other risk factors. But having two fresh pairs of eyes on the article will only help. Thank you and Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Chest recession

The table in "Diagnosis" states that chest recession is "when the baby inhales, the ribs do not move but the belly sinks in." I don't think that's the correct meaning of chest recession. What exactly does the reference (Sinha) state?

As an aside, I don't think that it's acceptable to refer to an entire book as an inline citation. The purpose of inline citations is to provide verifiability. That particular book has 388 pages. It is unreasonable to expect a reader to seek out verification in that way. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your point of view. Most of the medical books that I cite are digital editions and do not come with page numbers. You are not the first editor to ask this question, but I am still not sure how to cite an online medical textbook, behind a paywall (access provided by the University of Pittsburgh) with no page numbers. I am now trying to include Chapter titles to help provide a better reference. Using references that others cannot access is frustrating and there have been two times where I actually bought a used book to check out references that I did not have access to.

If you were able to obtain access to this digital medical textbook, undoubtedly you would be able to verify the content by searching the entire volume with keywords, but I realize that might not be an option for you. I am very much open to any suggestions that you have.

One of the purposes of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar program is to allow editors access to normally-unavailable content. As you can tell from the list of references, I used much content from the University of Pittsburgh digital editions of textbooks. So while there is a disadvantage for editors who want to confirm the content contained in the reference, the value of having access to these resources is incredibly valuable.

The textbooks that I cite are graduate level texts that contain extensive bibliographies. Therefore, the information cited IS available from another source. The problem is that the original source is probably a primary source. Medical textbook writers and editors sift through primary sources to create their textbook-which is a secondary source. I don't know if this information helped or not, but feel free to respond.

btw, not that it matters, but I had a child with asthma who had the same type of chest movements. When my granddaughter has her asthma 'episodes' her chest moves in the same way. I certainly can't and won't use this as a reference, but I at least have seen this symptom for myself.

The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This guideline gives an accurate description of recession on page 1.

I have no objection to you using those paywalled/non-free resources as references. Most textbooks, even online/digital textbooks, are divided into chapters. You could make it easier for interested readers to check the source by providing chapter numbers.

"The textbooks that I cite are graduate level texts that contain extensive bibliographies. Therefore, the information cited IS available from another source." That conclusion is often right but not necessarily true. While many textbooks have bibliographies, most do not have inline citations. Textbooks are typically the collated opinions of experts based on their understanding of the available data. An expert might draw an opinion based on several primary sources, where no individual primary source gives definitive evidence.

More importantly, did you add that table to the article, derived from that reference? If so, you should be able to quote the information from the source when asked to do so (by a good-faith editor asking for clarification).

[FYI, if you didn't know, I am a pulmonologist.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I now have access to a copy of Essential Neonatal Medicine, 5th edition (Sinha). Chest recession is mentioned as a sign in a table on page 116, chapter 10. Chest recession is not defined there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation Deletion

Hello, citation 22 had in incorrect url which was in a different language but I am unsure of how to delete the number 22, could somebody do this for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris b e (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. We don't delete citations just because they are in a different language. The archive link works fine. --Auric talk 21:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

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): UCSFStudent, Dcfootball, Sfjm2022 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: UCSFmed2025, METaw17.

— Assignment last updated by METaw17 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Added peer review to author's talk page. METaw17 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This article has been rated as C-class on the project’s quality scale and rated as high importance on the project’s importance scale. This article provided a decent number of causes for neonatal infections, but it did not include any detail for the hepatitis viral family as well as reasoning for vaccination and long-term complications of hepatitis infections. Our plan is to add the viral hepatitis family to the whole page - include why vaccinate, prenatal measures, treatment, and a brief explanation of the pathophysiology of hepatitis. We also plan on removing inaccurate medical information. Dcfootball (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcfootball (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Dcfootball (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Peer review: The authors identified an important area (hepatitis) that was not previously included in the page. The authors added a comprehensive and thorough section on neonatal hepatitis infection, which was supported by good quality references. The language was clear and at a good reading level. Areas for continued improvement on the page is to revise the use of gendered language (e.g., changing mother to terms like "pregnant person" and "gestational parent" to reflect that diverse genders can be pregnant and give birth). One additional suggestion is to embed more Wikilinks in the article - for example, it could be helpful to add links when discussing types of viruses (like single stranded vs double stranded and RNA vs DNA viruses). UCSFmed2025 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Sfjm2022 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 January 2023 and 25 February 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryanparnell (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gmoren5.

— Assignment last updated by Gmoren5 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)