Talk:Vitamin K reaction

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vitamin K reaction.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shiva.jafaripour, Jerriljacob, Sharoonie22, Zunaira.I.PharmD (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2023 Group A Proposed Edits

This article contains medical jargon, I will change the wording to be more colloquial. Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This page can also be more clear on what Vit K reaction means to the general population.Sharoonie22 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add image to enhance quality of the article (Incorporate photograph of vitamin K reaction).Jerriljacob (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add a background in Vitamin K. Sharoonie22 (talk)

Add different severities of Vitamin K reactions. Sharoonie22 (talk)

Clarify between different reactions (i.e. dermatologic, systematic, etc.)Sharoonie22 (talk)

Break down long run on sentences into shorter, more clear, and more concise sentences. Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The effects of Vitamin K on pediatrics versus adult populations. Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add information about use of Vitamin K.Jerriljacob (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add information on different administration routes.Jerriljacob (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add information on vitamin K caused blood clots. Jerriljacob (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add information on how to address vitamin K reactions Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add vitamin K reactions during pregnancy. Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add section on vitamin k importanceShiva.jafaripour (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

expand upon what puts infants at higher risk of vitamin d deficiency Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discuss alternative routes for vitamin k shot at birthShiva.jafaripour (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hose who have received a vitamin K infusion in the past are at higher risk of having an adverse reaction, so repeat infusion should be avoided in this group. removed this sentence because the reference is from 1997Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References Reviewed

shiva.jafaripour reviewed references #1-8: no predatory publishers, no duplicate references, all credible sources, all recently published in the last few years, all make sense to the points that were added Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerriljacob reviewed references 9-16: no predatory publishers identified. Reference 11 had a pay wall that prevented free access. We removed this article and replaced it with a new reference 11 that had free access. The update reflects the texts on the article that previously cited the old reference 11. Reference 14 also had a pay wall and was removed. Because other references had similar information cited in the text, reference 14 was not replaced. Therefore, references 9-15 (because one was removed) are reviewed and are correctly formatted. Jerriljacob (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed #17-24: no predatory publisher, no duplicates. Deleted source #17 (outdated source). Edited a few incorrect sources' published dates. Sharoonie22 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zunaira.I.PharmD reviewed references 25-32: found no predatory publishers, no duplicate references. Deleted source 32 because it was from 1997 and removed the sentence. All references were reviewed and correctly formated. All references had free access. Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Part 1: The group’s edit did substantially improve the article. It included information about reactions to different uses of Vitamin K such as how Vitamin K administered intramuscularly can affect the skin. This addresses the group’s goal to add information regarding different vitamin K reactions, use of Vitamin K and the different administration routes.

Part 2: The information in the article has citations from reputable sources such as the CDC and PubMed. Most of the sources are free and accessible but a few are not open access or free access. Dguan1 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! We have addressed this issue and replaced it with free access sources.Sharoonie22 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! We have removed those references that were identified with pay walls and replaced them with free access sources. Jerriljacob (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part One: Yes the group’s edits substantially improve the article by providing background, covering all aspects of the topic, and leaving appropriate sources for people to follow up on. I think the group has achieved all of their goals for improvement. They added all the sections that they mentioned and they made strides to improve medical jargon and updated references. Part Two: Some of the edits do support a more diverse reader base as the article has many sections that have been altered to include less medical jargon. However, I have spotted a couple areas that can still be difficult for a layman to understand. For example, they use the word prophylactically, which I feel is not known by many people. I would just suggest doing q quick reread of the article and changing some more complex words. But overall, I think the language is inclusive. There were a few uses of the word "patient" in the latter part of the article. I would suggest changing those to "person". Cool Pharmacy (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! We have read over our article once again and changed some of the wording.Sharoonie22 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! We agree that terms like prophylactically may be confusing to some readers and is not very inclusive. We have made changes to reflect your feedback. Jerriljacob (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: The edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Certain terms are linked to Wikipedia articles.The references are correlated with information in the article, except for 2 places where the citations are not formatted correctly: (2) with subcutaneous sclerosis with or without fasciitis, that appears at the site of injection many months after treatment.[1]: 123 The latter reaction is known as Texier's disease and lasts several years.[1]: 123 [14]DNguyen5 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1: Yes the group's edits substantially improved the article. The group's edits cover many different aspects of a vitamin K reaction and help the reader gain a complete understanding of the topic from different aspects of the reaction, treatments, precautions and effects in varying populations. They also use appropriate references that readers who are interested in learning more about the topic can follow to further educate themselves. I do believe that the group has achieved the overall goals for improvement. I would suggest breaking up larger chunks of text to improve readability and explain technical terms in easy to understand language to orient readers.

Part 2: The article edits do reflect a neutral point of view. Rather than pushing a specific point of view, the writers present the facts which are supported by reputable sources in an unbiased way and help readers learn more about the topic. Blueberrie49 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]