Talk:Active surveillance of prostate cancer

Medicine Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): I. Ly, UCSF, B. Hyland 17, Sydney Martinelli, Richard.Ishimaru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

There are other people in the world besides Americans--Manky b (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ambiguous

The article on prostate cancer says that watchful waiting and active surveillance are not the same. This article says they are. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AHRQ evidence report on this topic

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently published an updated systematic review on treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer that includes active surveillance. Would you consider adding this report to the references? It is available at http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=2022. Bylie59 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Active surveillance of prostate cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109163119/http://www.canaryfoundation.org/research/prostate-cancer-clinical-studies/ to http://www.canaryfoundation.org/research/prostate-cancer-clinical-studies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group 2 proposed edits

We are proposing to edit this article in 4 ways: Addressing the "Biased" issue by including non-American men (where we are able to support the data), addressing the "ambiguous" issue by including differences (if any) between watchful waiting and active surveillance, adding information from more current systematic reviews (to include the mentioned 2014 AHRQ evidence report), and to simplify the language of the article where possible. We are updating this article as a class project and appreciate any feedback as we are conducting our update. Richard.Ishimaru (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider the differences with black men, who may also be American. The article's biggest problem is WP:SYNTH and overuse of primary sources-- they should all be removed and replaced with secondary reviews, of which they are plenty. The 2014 report is old ... there are newer reviews (try to stay within five years per WP:MEDDATE). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions! We will do our best to add race/ethnicity information and find secondary sources. We will also stay within five years per WP:MEDDATE. Thank you again! Richard.Ishimaru (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Due to COVID-19-related adjustments to the Wiki Ed Foundation, our course has been advised to focus on one article to update. We have chosen to focus on a different article but would like to leave our proposed edits to hopefully be pursued by those that follow. Richard.Ishimaru (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]