Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Kivu Ebola Epidemic

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated

Submit
Authors
Reviewers
Editors
About

WikiJournal of Medicine is an open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journal for Medical and Biomedical topics. <seo title=" WJM, WikiJMed, Wiki.J.Med., WikiJMed, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, WikiJournal Medicine, Wikipedia Medicine, Wikipedia medical journal, WikiMed, Wikimedicine, Wikimedical, Medicine, Biomedicine, Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value='10.15347/WJM/2022.001'>

Article information

Author: Ozzie Anis[i]  

See author information ▼
  1. ↑ by online form

 

Plagiarism check

Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool flagged some false positives (not regarded as plagiarism) due to common stock phrases. Totaled 29.1% with plagiarism 'very unlikely'. Please see the results here [1] WillyTheVolleyball (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (author)

Would like to point out that this article has become GA [2]. Dr Watson has contacted me via email to recommend a peer reviewer, am therefore in the process of doing so, thank you (please move my comment should there be a more appropriate section/area for it)--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1


Review by James Heilman ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

This in an good overview of the outbreak in question. The initial introductory paragraph could benefit with some tightening of language. The first sentence is good. The second sentence IMO should list give the total cases and deaths. This should be followed by a list of the countries affected. I have made a number of minor word changes throughout the text. Feel free to revert if I introduced errors. Best Doc James (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a valuable review and have gone about the recommended changes:


Yes by "list" I simply meant "give". What you have added is good. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
your suggestions have been most useful, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I believe I have addressed the specific comments, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendations, should you have any further recommendations please do not hesitate to post as I will address them immediately, (have sent email to Dr Shafee) --Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2


Review by Catherine Bolten ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

The entry is strong on facts, but the writing needs a little work. Most of the paragraphs are not thematically organized; paragraph breaks seem to occur randomly and there are no organizing sentences at the beginning of each paragraph.

In paragraph 3, some mention is made of political disinformation--this needs to be fleshed out more than it currently is in a single short paragraph buried near the end of the entry. Rumor and conspiracy theories are strong indicators of resistance to treatment efforts even where physical access is granted to villages, and also high indicators of people refusing safe burial practices and even menacing healthcare and burial workers. More than "disinformation", what information was circulating that hindered containment? You come back to this briefly in the section on 25% of people believing it to be a hoax, and again in the "misinformation" section, however it isn't enough for me--I would like to see a few more references about how this misinformation tracked with the epidemic. You need to flesh out the "Misinformation" section much more.

The last two paragraphs of the summary need work--there is no resolution to the facts presented there even as the outbreak has been declared over in Kivu. The last paragraph, which mentions a separate, newer outbreak, is out of place. It can be mentioned in one sentence in an actual summary statement (there isn't one) so that the reader knows that Ebola is circulating in the Congo, but the way it is currently written appears to be a new Wiki entry that someone abandoned.

The first paragraph of the epidemiology section needs to list the Ebola variant that was involved in the epidemic.

Democratic Republic of Congo section:The index case is the woman who died herself, not her death and unsafe burial. That sentence needs to be rewritten.

I think the entry needs a visual map tracking the geographic spread of confirmed cases over time. This is critical information, but is difficult to convey effectively in narrative.

The entry also needs a separate section that summarizes how the vaccine was available and distributed. It is not clear when it is mentioned that "vaccines were running out" (the section on becoming the second-largest EVD outbreak), who was distributing them or where they came from, especially as in a later section the Ugandan government made a separate decision to vaccinate frontline workers.

The section on military conflict is excellent.

There is some slightly misworded information in the virology section. Though the natural reservoir of the virus is the fruit bat, it is incorrect to imply that transmission to humans occurs because fruit bats are consumed. The form of EBV-Z that has been isolated from fruit bats has not been successfully replicated in a form that can infect humans; this means that the reservoir is not the vector, and the virus must pass through some other species body first. No index case of EBV has ever been traced to fruit bat consumption.

Following this up in the "community engagement and awareness" section, there is still no evidence that eating bushmeat is a risky practice. That is supposition, and it also misleads readers, placing it in the same category of risk as unsafe treatment and burial practices. A case derived directly through zoonotic transfer would technically be a new index case, not a risk behavior in an existing epidemic.

in the "Burials" section, was there evidence of unsafe burials being super-spreader events the same way they were in the West Africa epidemic?

Response

This is a valuable review and have gone about the recommended changes:

1.Done [6] --Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.Done [7]--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3.Done [8][9]--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4.Done [10]--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5.Dr. Bolten, I agree that such a map is a good idea, however [11] does not offer a map which tracks the geographic spread of confirmed cases over time, though there are many other types of maps during the outbreak that can be used, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6.Done [12] , plus [13]--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7.Thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8.Done [14]--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9.Done [15] --Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10.Dr. Bolten, per [16] and many other sources, funerals are super-spreader events for the virus (EVD); however in the 'same way they were in the West Africa epidemic' has not been observed in any source so far (e.g. Pubmed/ Google books), at least not phrased in that particular manner--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed the specific comments, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendations, should you have any further recommendations please do not hesitate to post as I will address them immediately, (have sent email to Dr Shafee)--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from editor


Comments by Roger Watson ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

Thank you for attending to the reviews, I have close edited once more.] Could I ask you to make sure all the tables and figures are referred to specifically in line in the text; many are simply not referred to, as far as I can see, and some say eg 'above' but it should be of the form: 'As shown in Table 1' or 'a piece of information (Table 1)' etc. Finally - under Vaccine effectiveness you cite a figure of 97.5% effectiveness - can you specify if this is RRR (relative risk ratio) - which seems likely - or ARR (absolute risk ratio)? Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Dr Watson

Should there be any further information I might have missed, I would therefore add unhesitatingly, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/The_Kivu_Ebola_Epidemic&oldid=2389562"