Talk:Deep vein thrombosis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I have taken on the GA review of this article. On first inspection it looks impressive and I will be studying it in much greater detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First thought

"Deep vein thrombosis" is a noun phrase so the abbreviation DVT should be used grammatically in the same way as the phrase. This means that such a sentence as "... most of those suspected of DVT do not have it after evaluation" is unsatisfactory. If you used "blood clot" instead of DVT in the sentence you would get "... most of those suspected of blood clot do not have it after evaluation." So I would prefer "... most of those suspected of having a DVT do not have it after evaluation". This point is rather fundamental to the article. Maybe DVT is widely used in the way you have used it and I am being pedantic. I would welcome some input from others on this point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree but am no expert on grammar and usually count on others to fix mine :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but this may help. Here's some text from Lijfering et al.: "many people have several of these risk factors but never develop thrombosis; others suffer from thrombosis but have none." I was thinking one could substitute DVT in for thrombosis without creating an issue. It appears the term venous thrombosis is used: "... carriers have a 5-7 fold increased risk of venous thrombosis". Biosthmors (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's some text from a free source[1] (page 19S under 5.2): "In pregnant patients with suspected DVT in whom initial proximal CUS is negative..." I'll tweak the example to follow this. Biosthmors (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought this might be a problem throughout the article, but it was not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First read through

I have read through the article carefully. In general the prose, grammar, spelling etc. are fine. Here are the small number of points that struck me when considering criterion 1a. I shall consider the other criteria later. There is no rush - I understand that Biosthmors is away for the time being and the review can continue on his return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Classification

1. Bilateral DVT refers to its presence in both legs while unilateral specifies one leg. - What does "it" refer to?

Causes

1. Venous thrombi are recognized to be caused mainly by a combination of venous stasis and hypercoagulability—but to a lesser extent endothelial damage and activation. The three factors of stasis, hypercoaguability, and alterations in the blood vessel wall represent Virchow's triad, and changes to the vessel wall are the least understood. - The second of these sentences seems largely to repeat the information in the first. Rephrase.
2. Acquired risk factors include older age, which is the strongest risk factor; after aging, blood composition favors clotting. - Rephrase this.
3. Relative risks estimates for the three go up to ten or twenty. - Ten or twenty what?

Pathophysiology

1. In contrast to the understanding for how arterial thromboses occur, as with heart attacks, - Should be understanding "of" but whole sentence is awkward.
2. As a whole, platelets constitute less of venous thrombi when compared to arterial ones - Awkward.
3. ... by tissue factor effected thrombin production, which leads to fibrin deposition. - I think this should be "affected".

Surgery patients

1. ... is estimated to be about four percent. - Why not 4% as in the previous paragraph?

Pregnancy

1. Homozygous carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A with a family history of VTE were recommended to ... - Recommended by whom?

Prognosis

1. After the one to two year period after the initial development of symptoms of DVT ... - This sentence is awkward. Could you also explain what "post-thrombotic syndrome" is.

History

1. Although, the historicity of the medical literature is somewhat questioned as the interpretations of Virchow's work differ. - Awkward.

Status?

No one seems to have made any comments here for about two weeks. Do you need help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The nominator was due to be away from home for some time but should be back now. I will remind him about this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've addressed, clarified or reworded the text in relation to all raised concerns. In regards to 1a concerns below, I've made sure each paragraph with recommendations clarify that they were generated by the ACCP.[2] Biosthmors (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The chief problem that I see is the repeated use of the words "suggested" and "recommended" without an indication of who is making these suggestions/recommendations. I suspect that this is referring to the position in the US and the ACCP guidelines but this should be clarified as other organisations, in other parts of the world, may provide different guidance. This has now been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problem here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is well referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as I can tell.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic is comprehensively covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This does not seem to be a problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images and captions are appropriate and helpful.
	7. Overall assessment.	A good, well-written article that fulfils the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)