Talk:Eclampsia

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DrKMD (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emb47. 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): Terry.vo (article contribs).

Hypoperfusion

This term occurs in the article, but it is not defined in the article. There is also no link to a definition. A search for "hypoperfusion" in wikipedia leads to an article on ischemia. It appears that they are synonyms, but I don't have the required medical knowledge. Ileanadu (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Preeclamptic Symptoms

I think what some of the above entries are getting at is that these women apparently had no prior symptoms, or didn't recognize them, which is contradicted by the statement that:

   "rarely does eclampsia occur without preceding preeclamptic symptoms"

Ileanadu (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The above are compelling anecdotes but that is why it says rarely, not never. Ψαμαθος 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psamathos (talk • contribs)

Risk Factors

There appears to be a typo error at the end of this section. It reads: "Most cases result of aggressive use of crystalloid solutions for intravascular volume expansion." I am unable to guess at the intended meaning, so I am not sure how to correct it. Can anyone else figure it out?

Eclampsia in Animals

Is this worth mentioning here? Hypocalcaemia in dogs is referred to as eclampsia/peuperal tetany when it occurs due to their lactation (doesn't usually happen at birth like it does in people). Brionyvet (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to talk page

Deleted several personal stories from this talk page. Please see in the directions above, this is not a forum. It is for discussion about editing the article. 98.232.225.61 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Convulsions section edit needed

In the Convulsions section, there appears to be an incomplete sentence:

Prevention of convulsion is usually done using magnesium sulphate. The idea to use Mg2+ for the management of eclamptogenic toxemia dates from before 1955 when it was tested and published—the serum The international MAGPIE study, of 2004, evaluated the long-term implications of the magnesium sulphate therapies.

Note that something needs to follow "the serum"; "The international MAGPIE study..." begins a new sentence. It's also unclear what was tested and published—what does the "it" refer to? The idea? Very confusing; more clarity would be helpful. I have tried to find relevant information; I think what is being referenced is the serum test for protein in the urine, but I don't have the necessary knowledge to complete the sentence. I will check the edit history to see if part of the sentence was inadvertently removed accidentally. —D'Ranged 1 ^talk 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I went back through the edit history and found the missing text. The editor was attempting to remove dosage information, per MEDMOS, but deleted far too much information. It makes sense now, but someone with more knowledge might want to check it. I would caution against removing the information on therapeutic serum levels; these are not doses of magnesium sulfate (which is the information that has been removed), but serum levels that lead to specific symptoms. I also deleted an instance of "convulsions and seizures", since a previous editor noted that they are medically the same thing. They intimated that "convulsions" was the medical term, but I found "seizure" used widely in the article, including a link to a separate article on Tonic-clonic seizures, so I removed "convulsions" and left "seizures". If someone objects, it would be good to use the same terminology throughout, in my opinion.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Archtypically Bad Article

This article needs a serious re-write. It suffers badly from a disease common on wikipedia: it is written by experts *for* experts. Wikipedia is an *encyclopedia*, not a medical textbook. One should not need to already have a degree in medicine to understand the article. I mean, seriously, what lay person coming to this article is already going to be familiar with words and phrases such as "pathophysiological process", "toxemic changes", "crystalloid solutions for intravascular volume expansion", "immunologically mediated", "vasoactive agents", "altered atrioventricular conduction", or "intubation and mechanical ventilation as adjuvants"? Seriously? If I were a pregnant woman and my doctor started decribing my conditions in such terms, I'd run out and get another doctor! "adjuvants"??? What percent of the population do you think knows the word "adjuvant"??? I'm not even talking about the great unwashed masses. What percentage of *Harvard* graduates do you think knows the word "adjuvant"??? Stop showing off how smart you are and write an article that a reasonably educated person can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.36.210 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments in my view are spot on. I will begin to mold the article toward the general biology high school student, who I believe should be the prototype target for all Wikipedia science and medicine articles. I would like your feedback when I am finished: it will take awhile. Also, I would urge you to choose and use a Username so I can relate to you as a person not a number. Then become an editor! You can start by looking up the definition of adjuvant and replacing it with a simpler term that you choose. Incidentally, the "you" you are addressing is actually 224 people who have made 422 revisions over 12 years. I just spent 15 minutes editing and am now the number 6 top all-time editor by number of edits! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Work Plan

In the next 4 weeks I will be working on this article as part of the course curriculum at my medical university. I hope to improve this article by:

Expanding the existing sections

Adding further citations to reliable outside sources and embedding links to other Wiki pages to support the background information presented

Editing the existing content to decrease the amount of medical jargon and thus make it more understandable for laypersons.

There are multiple sections of this article that could benefit from expansion, and I plan to begin by adding to the sections which are currently shortest: 'Risk Factors', 'Prevention', and 'Diagnosis'. I plan to include information on screening in the 'Prevention' section. The 'Diagnosis' section needs a more detailed differential diagnosis subheading and information on what testing results are diagnostic rather than just a listing of possible tests alone. I will continue with an overhaul of the 'Signs and Symptoms' and 'Treatment' sections to make them easier to read for the general public by converting much of the jargon to plain English. The 'Signs and Symptoms' section could benefit from the addition of a 'Complications' subheading. Once these changes are complete I may add more sections to the article as time permits, including 'Special Populations', 'Epidemiology', and 'History'.

I will specifically exclude overly detailed information on the pathophysiology of eclampsia, which is not only poorly understood by the medical and scientific communities to date but also of little utility to the general audience for this article. I will also exclude specific medical recommendations, as I would not want to lead any readers to believe that they could manage their own illness by way of this article rather than consulting a physician in person, as that is not this article's purpose.

I have a host of available resources to tackle this project via my university, and I will focus first on background information from online search engines including ClinicalKey, AccessMedicine, and MedlinePlus and move on to more foreground information from PubMed and Scopus, specifically data from the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on eclampsia. I will also make use of Plain Language writing guides and medical dictionaries in an effort to avoid complicated medical terminology. Please reach out as I am editing if you have any suggestions to help me improve the article or any comments on my ongoing work!

Thank you. --DrKMD (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

When you use books can you make sure you add page numbers? Or chapters at least?

We often include medical recommendations but if controversial attribute them to the source in question.

For example we say "Recommendations for prevention include aspirin in those at high risk, calcium supplementation in areas with low intake, and treatment of prior hypertension with medications."

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, thank you for the suggestion! I will make every effort to include specific page numbers in my citations.

Much appreciated DrKMD (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work so far with your plan and improvements to the articles. I made some adjustments to the risk factor paragraph and added a few "citation needed" tags. Would you be able to review these? I also removed a 1969 journal article from this paragraph and replaced it with a citation needed tag. If you cannot find a source, we should remove the sentences for now. Thanks again. We appreciate your assistance improving the content of these articles. JenOttawa (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Here is my review of the Eclampsia article for the WikiEd course: I think that the opening section is really well done as it explains exactly what eclampsia is in very simple and concise terms while keeping the information relevant and accurate. I found nothing in this article distracting from the main topic.

I really like the definitions/clarifications provided in parentheses after terms that could be unknown by people reading who are not in the medical field. I also think that an appropriate number of terms are embedded. The mechanism section is the only one with a lot of medical jargon but that I can see how that would be hard to get around with this topic and all of the terms that could be confusing are embedded.

Throughout the article the information provided in each section is relevant to the disease process and maintains a neutral tone. If I was not aware of the controversy surrounding eclampsia and was reading about it for the first time I would not have thought any existed. There were no conflicting statements and the definitions were very straightforward. I don’t think any view points were over or under represented. I think it's really helpful that the information is derived from both OB and neurology resources.

I think the whole article is referenced appropriately and often. The sources clearly support all of the claims in the article that were derived from them. After going through the reference section it was easy to access the information from the links. Many of the pages provided are specific enough to actually find the information. The few resources that were from over 10 years ago were used to get information that is still in practice today like for the use of magnesium sulfate for pre-eclampsia management. I think the whole article is referenced appropriately and often. The sources clearly support all of the claims in the article that were derived from them.

In terms of organization, I think the majority is great in that each point is broken up nicely into the sections rather than having a bunch of long paragraphs. The risk factors section I think could be in list form, just for style points.

What i think could be added: - Although the terms for the LFT’s and RFT’s and coagulation screen are embedded in the laboratory test section I think it might be useful to provide how they will be abnormal in eclampsia specifically. This might be too specific for what the article is trying to provide but just a thought. - Outcomes section for the future pregnancies of women who have an episode of eclampsia, maybe it could even go in the monitoring section when talking about future check ups.

I think that the work you have done in the article lines up with the work plan you set out at the beginning of the block. Great job it looks awesome! --Emb47 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind peer review! I found your assessment and feedback really encouraging! I agree that the 'mechanism' section is jargon-dense; I had hoped to edit it to contain more understandable plain language and got distracted with adding content to shorter sections which appeared to need more help. I ended up leaving the mechanism section as it existed before I started working on the article, but I may try to go back in the final days and make a few changes if possible. I think that your idea for adding an outcomes section for the future pregnancies of women who have had eclampsia is a great idea, and I will try to incorporate it into the existing 'prevention' section!

Thank you for the suggestions and the thoughtful review! --DrKMD (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8a goals

• Review any updated treatment regimens
• Expand on pharmacological treatments, including side effects to consider and responses to therapy
• Expand on BP management (thresholds and other pharmacological options)