Talk:Umbilical cord prolapse

message: The image seems to be a transverse lie as well...  
This newspaper article probably tells us more about psychology and alternative approaches to healthcare than it does about what to do or what the risk level is - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/05/17/hbirth17.xml&sSheet=/health/2006/05/17/ixhmain.html  Midgley 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What should I do in reviewing a classmate's work?
*read their page!
editor offers guidance to reviewer, including:
*editor's goals
*clarity on what section(s) to prioritize, ignore
Reviewer's feedback to the editor contains:
*general comments re: language, simplicity, clarity, etc.
:*I think the language is appropriate for lay people reading the article. Simple and clear.
:*Some grammatical errors (second paragraph of lead).
*areas to prioritize, identify holes & hypertrophied parts
:*Since it is the part first read, I think the lead should be prioritized.
:*Make sure no areas where “citation needed”
:*Perhaps aim to add and follow Wiki’s suggesting outline for medical conditions (where appropriate):
::-Classification
::-Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
::-Causes: Includes Risk factors, triggers, Genetics or genome, Virology (e.g., structure morphology and replication).
::-Mechanism: For information about pathophysiology.
::-Diagnosis: Includes characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis.
::-Prevention or Screening (if the section only discusses secondary prevention it should follow the treatment section)
::-Treatment or Management: This might include any type of currently used treatment, such as diet, exercise, medication, palliative care, physical therapy, psychotherapy, self care, surgery, watchful waiting, and many other possibilities. Consider discussing treatments in a plausible order in which they might be tried, or discussing the most common treatments first. Avoid experimental/speculative treatments and preventive measures (e.g., prophylactic vaccines or infection-avoidance techniques). As per the policy of WP:NOTHOW, Wikipedia articles should not be written in a "how-to" style, but this does not prevent adding official guidelines of treatments or managements if these can be presented in an objective manner and with medically reliable sources.
::-Outcomes: For the prognosis. May also be labeled "Possible outcomes" or "Outlook".
::-Epidemiology: factors such as incidence, prevalence, age distribution, and sex ratio.
::-History: Early discoveries, historical figures, and outdated treatments (not patient history)
::-Society and culture: This might include stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, notable cases.
*quality of cited works
:*Your article has a number of secondary sources. I would suggesting aiming to make sure the article has 5-20 quality sources by the end of the block. 
Veronicagon4 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Planning to edit the flow and grammar of the final section of the lead OT32013727 (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Plan to edit grammar of epidemiology section to clarify meaning of singleton pregnancy.Hannah7319 (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortening the first sentence of the signs and symptoms by switching up the wordingOT32013727 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Plan to edit grammar of risk factor section to clarify meaning of iatrogenic risk factors. Hannah7319 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Hi all, I am interested in improving both the accuracy and content quality of this page. I would like to make some major edits to the lead, as there are some factual inaccuracies that I have come upon. Additionally, many of the referenced sources are outdated. I would also like to expand the breadth of information that the article contains. Please let me know if you have any advice or additional comments. I would much appreciate any collaboration. 
Proposed changes:
-Lead section: Umbilical cord prolapse (UCP) does not only occur during labor. It can occur any time after rupture of membranes. Although rare, UCP can still have occurred even if cord is not visualized. Also, I do not think multiparity has been qualified as the “greatest” risk of UCP. I plan to remove these inaccuracies and update the wording of these statements. 
-Signs/Symptoms: Eliminate some of the medical jargon (i/e: explain fetal heart tracing / variable decelerations)
-Risk Factors: Add additional risk factors- considering separating by maternal and fetal instead of noniatrogenic vs. iatrogenic 
-Epidemiology: There is some recent evidence of decreasing incidence, cited by a few large studies. Will consider adding this information after further review of sources.
-Any thoughts on changing the word "baby" to "fetus" throughout the entire article? I feel that this is a more medically accurate term.
Thank you! --Sogupta (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref says "Interestingly, despite ominous fetal heart rate tracings, abnormal fetal blood gas readings, and low Apgar scores, most of the mortality is attributable to congenital anomalies and prematurity." so restored. ::We tend to use common English especially in the lead. Baby is thus perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it can occur anytime after rupture of membranes, thanks for the clarification. It however does most often occur during labor. Have adjusted a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Improvement and Additions