Difference between revisions of "Talk:2010 Group Project 3"

From Embryology
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 35: Line 35:
===Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement===
===Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement===
(Z3129413) - insufficient contribution to the final project and feedback to peers.
===The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning===
===The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning===
Line 236: Line 234:
glossary is where we will define terms
glossary is where we will define terms
hopefully u can upload ur sections soon.
Here is one last thing to note; I dont know if u guys were there, but i talked to dr hill after the last lab and he was clear about these things; keep it clear, concise and dont make a 5000 word page for the sake of it, we will get marked down.  
Here is one last thing to note; I dont know if u guys were there, but i talked to dr hill after the last lab and he was clear about these things; keep it clear, concise and dont make a 5000 word page for the sake of it, we will get marked down.  
Line 259: Line 257:
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
* So you want me write more specifically what type of needle they use?
* I dont know what you want us to write in the introduction, can you explain it better?
* I dont think we should down play the risks, the risks are there no matter how often they occur, we need to explain them, then its our job to show how reliable the procedure is in DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY. We can say that its relatively safe compared to the other techniques, although there is a small chance of complications due to these risks, and outline them.
* When you talk about "how many cases of deaths from infections..etc" do you think we should write for each risk the occurence rate of them? That could be something worth looking into. Of course all invasive procedures have a risk of infection, and yes the chance of the fetus getting hit by the needle is small (since they use ultrasound) we still need to mention and explain all the possible risks.
* I mentioned in my procedure section that there is a delay in recieveing the results, read through it.
* For those terms mentioned = aneuploidy, trisomy etc, i said we are adding a glossary to the bottom of the page. Feel free to contribute terms from your section, when it is up.
* "We should mention somewhere that Gammaglobulin must to be given to at risk rhesus factor mothers in regard Kleihauer." What does this sentence mean?
* For diagnostic accuracy i think we should mention the possibility of false results - false positive or false negative results. The outcomes of these could be discussed in ethical issues - i.e. a mother aborting a pregnancy thinking there is an abnormality, or a mother not terminating the pregnancy thinking there are no defects, but the baby is born with a disorder.
* Also for diagnostic accuracy, the one reference that is there is from a study of a second trimester amniocentesis, although some are performed during the first trimester, so maybe see if the accuracy is different for the 2? Also it would be good to show trends in accuracy over time, has it improved since the use of ultrasound in the 70's?
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 393: Line 374:
Actually guys you know what I just realised. '''VERY IMPORTANT''' PLEASE READ THIS:
Actually guys you know what I just realised. '''VERY IMPORTANT''' PLEASE READ THIS:
Mark (Hill) told us that peer assessment was due today and we're not allowed to edit the page until the peer assessment is over which is next thursdays lab. Meaning we only have from next thursdays lab, '''23rd''', to the following monday, the '''27th''' to finish the page.  
Mark (Hill) told us that peer assessment was due today and we're not allowed to edit the page until the peer assessment is over which is next thursdays lab. Meaning we only have from next thursdays lab, '''23rd''', to the following monday, the '''27th''' to finish the page.  
This is why we were supposed to have our projects pretty much finished for today and only adjust it slightly in response to the peer assessments. So '''312''' you'll have '''4 days''' after next thursday to finish your sections and allow us to look at it to give you feedback in case it needs to be further edited before the FINAL assessment.
This is going to be a very tight squeeze since you havent done anything before this morning. That is why i may have seemed harsh in my response because we have very limited time and it isnt fair to us to have contributed so late to the due date.
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes the previous years had more than 400 edits, this project is due in a week and a half (11 days!) and compare the amount of edits me and mark have done to how many you have done. I hope this will be enough time for you to finish your sections and allow us to have a look at it in advance to the due date and give you feedback as its a group project and we are supposed to help each other. Me and mark and have given each other feedback on our sections and helped each other to make it better, I think that is what makes a successful group project - working together.
If you think the rest of the project is too simplistic tell me where my parts can be changed and ill look into it. The introduction is meant to outline the assignment and I think that's what i did. The procedure section clearly outlines every step of the procedure, I even went into the detail of the analysis of the amniotic fluid in the lab (including a diagram i drew) which I was worried was too technical for people without knowledge of the topic to understand but Mark assured me it was good and clear. I asked everybody for their opinions last week, Mark replied and told me he found it easy to understand but it had enough detail. Read it and tell me what you think.
Ethical issues, no matter how complicated it is, can still be written in a clear and concise format, with clear issues that are introduced then elaborated on with references to back up the argument. Sub headings can be used I think that would break up a big section of text well, thats what I used in my sections.
Are the drawings okay? It was the best I could do, I think I showed the procedure clearly and it complements the relevant sections. Do you have any ideas about pictures for the other sections? Are you going to include any pictures in yours?
--[[User:Z3129413]] 00:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thankyou 3292208 duly noted. Categories will be edited and valid criticism and typos will be corrected. I found your introduction and subsequent sections lacked some scientific feel, in fact the whole page overall is rather too simplistic in my opinion. This of course can be edited as can the work I have done. Outlining Ethical issues as Im sure you are aware is rather more complicated than merely introducing the subject and listing how the proceedure is conducted, and that I have been trying to find the best way in which to present this, however I thankyou for suggesting the way in which it could be done, this will have to be considered when I edit my work. I did see that previous pages have had upwards of 400+ edits BEFORE the FINAL submission. I hope we can all edit our work to make it better which of course will be done way before the due date.
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 19:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
as much as im grateful you're finally putting something on the page doing it this late, a few hours before its due, doesnt give us any time to give you feedback for it.
Since im awake though for Diagnostic Accuracy one study isnt enough to give a final say about the topic, you still have to make an overall judgement of the accuracy of the procedure or even show that its become more reliable through trends over time.
Ethical issues needs to be structured in a more clear and concise format, its too much writing in one block and isnt clear to the point. Its hard to tell what your key points of argument are. I also dont think using questions to the audience is a good idea, you should more so just be presenting the issues to be thought about but using hard evidence to present them instead of using rhetorical questions to just put the ideas out there. You should also mention one of the KEY ethical issues about amnniocentesis = ABORTION. Theres also no references in that section.
In current research that paragraph reads exactly like in the article you referenced, we have to write it in our own words or its plagiarism. And whilst copying it you made a mistake the article says the stem cells do NOT form tumors in vivo (whatever that means which should be explained on the project page) and you wrote that they do form tumors.
I hope you'll at least edit it more than a few hours before the final assessment is due.
See you in the lab.
--[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 636: Line 578:
Hey mark yeh a table is a good idea how about having quite a simplified table first just showing the different chromosomal and neural tube defect just as a little summary then after it have headings and go into all the detail? you could also add a picture column in the table for each disorder? or put that with the bulk of info either way i guess. sounds good tho!
Hey mark yeh a table is a good idea how about having quite a simplified table first just showing the different chromosomal and neural tube defect just as a little summary then after it have headings and go into all the detail? you could also add a picture column in the table for each disorder? or put that with the bulk of info either way i guess. sounds good tho!
Hey 312 how are you going with your section? Im getting worried not seeing a draft or anything of yours since its due monday! Let us know how you're going please!
Line 784: Line 722:
Also we can put more than one student drawing but i think we need at least one. We do need more pictures in it though.
Also we can put more than one student drawing but i think we need at least one. We do need more pictures in it though.
Hey 312, how are you going with your section?
Line 866: Line 803:
Hey Mark the breakdown for risks and disorders looks like a good structure, looks like you'll cover everything.
Hey Mark the breakdown for risks and disorders looks like a good structure, looks like you'll cover everything.
--[[User:Z3129413|Z3129413]] 01:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)z3129413
will be working on page all day wed and will be online here.
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You have the major headings and some content added to some sections (but not all) on your project page. I cannot see any additional resources, images that you have sourced from other scientific sources, nor the student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You have the major headings and some content added to some sections (but not all) on your project page. I cannot see any additional resources, images that you have sourced from other scientific sources, nor the student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.
Line 923: Line 858:
Picture to put in from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532964/  
Picture to put in from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532964/  
--[[User:Z3129413]] 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks 325.
--[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
yea bro, il bring my camera tomo.
--[[Z3129413]] 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)z3129413
The page layout is awesome... Anyone have a digi camera at the moment can you bring it thurs/fri.. can get some snapshots for the page... return camera next lab if feasible...
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Ok you guys have been doing some talk here. Now is the time to start thinking how to populate your project page subheadings. Remember that anything you do can always be undone or altered at a later date. I also see an absence here of good visual material for your project.
Line 1,026: Line 945:
22:54 August 18
Z3129413: Yes tasks outlines are good. Diagnostic accuracy according to NATA guidelines can be accessed quite easily. NATA is the testing accrediting agency in Australia, which monitors pathology labortory testing accuracy in accordance to intesively reviewed set guidlines. Any lab operating wants to have NATA accreditation in order to display the logo on request forms etc. I think that all hospitals outsource genetic and pathology testing to semi or fully private companies which can also be part of the government health service. Those labs that are aligned with hospitals, usualy those located on the hospital campus itself, are all absolutely operating in accordance with NATA guidlines. The further question here is what are the inherant diagnostic inaccuracies associated with amniocentesis itself, if any? I dont know at this stage. Another question is , can amniocentesis be conducted in private rooms by a clinic, GP or other? Therefore are patients attending here protected by some sort of accreditation monitoring agency?
I think leaving the diagnostic accuracy to involve only Australia is relavant, as it can be safe to assume that in places where medical proceedures are commonly understood to not generally fall below a certain standard, what happens in Australia applies to them also as the medical information and research is shared between these locations via published research studies from various universities etc. and are used by the various national accrediting agencies as reference material in formatting the guidlines.
I will look into accessing the current plus or minus degrees of error and reference ranges used to diagnose the top most test requested for.
In tackling the last two topics,
Ethical issues and current research perhaps can tie in together (an option)
- as at a glance I do not think there is much controversy surrounding the test per se,
other than in terms of potential physical trauma to mother or infant due to accident at time of proceedure or malpractice, possibly instrument sterility issues re bacteria introduced into womb or abdominal wall. In light of the risks associated ( therefore proceedural ethics) in this regards,I will have to weigh it up with investigating if there are simple blood tests that can accurately diagnose the same tests requested from an amniocentesis. But this will be covered by 3. RISKS.
Alternate proceedures for the tests could be covered by 'Diagnostic accuracy' I will have to look into this. Maybe other proceedures (blood tests) are more accurate for some tests.
so lets call that safety/ accuracy concerns. Maybe not to bring ethics into this at this point.
Propose '5.Diagnostic accuracy and efficiency'.
Propose '6.Outcomes from results' 
Of course there is the issue of receiving a positive test result. I can cover this as the 'medical outcomes' of the tests (what it allows the parents to do in light of the knowledge). Here is a major source of ethical debate.
Propose '7.Current research trends and ethical debates'
State main streams of current research and the place they are being conducted, in order to highlight the fact that there may be differing laws govering research restrictions.
give a brief outline of current laws (probably sourced from UN. I will aim to give specific examples of where public oppinion has opposed proposed research ideas. If it appears that personal related morality versus 'yes it is proceedurally ethical(safe to mother etc)' I will state that opinions differ in this regard. I will outline the purposes of the research and by then aiming to show any alternate methods of approaching the same research, if any, the ethical debate can then be structured in this way.
For now I think this is the best way to approach this.
ie, research says yes switch to uranium to alleviate the use of coal,
- immediately build heaps of controversial (public oppinion- wasteful)reactors
- or wait until all alternatives (public oppinion non controversial-cleaner) alternate methods have been investigated fully.
In this way, I wish to show that (eg 'public opinion') has a reasonable (scientific) leg to stand on upto this point, and then if it is shown that there is no other viable option to obtain the required results from investigations, then it is purely a matter of ethics as to proceed or not or benefit from the knowledge gained by those that do, and that this perhaps is the debate as it stands in essence, as medical knowledge once gained by any means is definately going to be used by all in the long run. Thinking about this I might just paint the spectrum of oppinions and how they each believe they are doing the right thing in regards to a particular research topic.   
(rough draft)
'in contrast to the controversy involved with the use of embryonic stem cells, research (reference information gained from Scientific American.com) has been conducted into stem cells gained from amniocentesis. Political,public and scientific (give examples) oppinion has supported amniotic fluid stemcells (AFS) because no embryo is used in obtaining these pluripotent cells (reference ScietificAmerican.com). The debate continues because researchers believe that AFS can be just as effective (will outline reasons) for research as those obtained from Embryos(ref, ScientificAmerican.com). Dr.(refs) sees this as a positive however Dr.(refs) states that there is no doing without embryonic stemcells because, but it can be seen that AFS research has much to offer according to institute ... (refs)"AFS can provide all etc etc. without the need to clone embryos(refs)". Religious and philosophical groups such as. support AFS for this reason.(refs)
this is an example of how I would structure the arguement..
hope this is all on track.    see you in the lab
will post links shortly.
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,217: Line 1,090:
hi everybody!
hi everybody!
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 22:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Well group 3 where is your work that should have been done before this week's Lab?

Latest revision as of 14:34, 15 August 2012

Group Assessment Criteria

The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described

  • (Timeline for key events in development of Amniocentesis) Well structured timeline. Though I do not like the reference [12] left hanging beneath the table with no explanation.
  • (Disorders Detected using Amniocentesis) Under "Disorder" it is inappropriate to link to Wiki resources rather than online scientific resources.
  • (Current Research) "A 2008 review of available literature outlines that further advancements into non invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) have also looked at targeting and isolating cell free foetal nucleic acids that are present in the maternal circulation for a select few genetic conditions, that may form part of the screening process for Down's syndrome in particular" should be "has" and the sentence makes no sense.
  • (Glossary) Has a reasonable coverage of topic terms and brief descriptions. The descriptions themselves could have better (simpler) language as the description often uses even more terms that require clarification. Missing: amniocytes, G-banding, transcervical, haemophillia, quantitative fluorescence polymerisation chain reaction

The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area


  • student drawn figure File:Chromosomalabnormalities.JPG (Z3254753) What is the original source for the information shown in your diagram?

Content is correctly cited and referenced

  • Reference [12] left hanging beneath the table with no explanation.
  • Reference [31] and [32] are the same, should have used multiple entry citation link.
  • (Psychological Risks) "The presence of a partner during the pregnancy has been found to reduce the stress levels of the mother. However, the elevated anxiety levels brought on by amniocentesis were found not to have the same effect. [29]" Why is this reference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20401956) not correctly cited in the reference list?
  • "1930 by Menees" mentioned elsewhere in project text but no reference and does not appear on your timeline.

The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations

Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities

  • (Ethical Issues) File:Aust_abortion_laws_updated.jpg.png This information has been sourced from a Wiki page, has there been any attempt to check the accuracy of this data? This is undated and unsorted in the original data, at the very least this should have been included in your description of the map data.

Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology

Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki

Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement

The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning

Need to standardise terminology and spelling throughout project (a simple spell check at the end would have helped)

  • Down's syndrome (2 times) and trisomy 21 (3 times)
  • foetal (8 times) fetal (27 times)
  • sex linked diseases should be sex-linked diseases
  • hemophilia is incorrect (two L's) American spelling Haemophillia
  • (Diagnostic Accuracy) section "TDK" should this be "TKT", a simple check would have found this error.
  • (Disorders Detected using Amniocentesis) "18st chromosome", surely the 18th chromosome
  • (Disorders Detected using Amniocentesis) "FMR1 gen" you mean "FMR1 gene"
  • (Ethical Issues) "Map of abortion laws in Aystralia" "Australia"
  • File:Enencephaly.jpg, should be File:Anencephaly.jpg (this figure is also not sourced correctly)

Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

--z3292208 10:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

hey page is looking good. in diagnostic accuracy the graph of down syndrome risk is kinda small though, were there any bigger ones you could find?

--z3254753 09:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

yea will do. i guess wat i meant is that our page doesnt need any major changes, just checking wat we already hav, so thats gud news, we all get to go to bed on time haha

If you encouter any spelling typos anywhaere feel free to change them.

--z3254753 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Im presumming before tomos lab, but not sure, im still adding final touches to my section then i think were all gud =)

im also gonna double check my section for spelling mistakes n whether it addresses criteria points. other than that, were done.

--z3254753 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

hey the picture is great, very relevant for the section and gives info in a different form, nice work! I thin kthe tone works well

--z3454753 06:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, u can use it without seeking permission =) i think copyright details need to be put with it, it looks like uve done that already though

--z3254753 04:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

--z3292208 04:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

so whats the answer then ?

--z3254753 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks tegan =)

--z3292208 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey also guys this is a link to the marking criteria and main points we need to have in the assignment so check it out and see if there's anything that needs fixing or adding?

Marking criteria

--z3292208 02:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How to reference with multiple instances on a page is all on this page: References

--z3254753 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, we should think bout maybe adding a picture or two to 312's sections. Thing is, its hard coming up with ideas of pictures that are relevant :S can u guys think of anything?

How do I reference the same thing in different parts of the page?

--z3254753 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup no worries. Ive got info there already on miscarriage, il move it around a bit and add to it. Good thinking about this as a key difference. Ill probly have it as my first sub heading.

Ive bin looking into my chromosomal abnormalities section, different sources say different things about catagorizing conditions, gotta make sure its all correct :S

thanks tegan

--z3292208 22:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

hey amniocentesis was the main heading of the page lol so i left that and the intro at the top, and moved the comparison with CVS to the bottom of the page as a wrap up i guess.

hey also mark are you gonna put an extra subheading in risks for miscarriage? i reckon it'd be good to highlight that risk as its one of the main ones you read about and that links into the comparison with CVS as thats one of the points that differs them. what do you reckon?

--z3254753 09:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

heya, how do u guys feel about putting amniocentesis after current research? i think itll b a great way to "end" the page, comparing this with cvs.

What do u guys think? i cud b way off on this one haha

--z3254753 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

yea gud thinking, il redo mine, n add a few more n base it on mark hill's, then reference elsewhere if needed.

--z3292208 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took glossary terms from Mark Hills glossary on this website, other terms i took from the internet and referenced, i think thats better to do and its not hard.

have a look at other groups pages to see their copyright statements to get an idea maybe?

--z3254753 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

im pretty sure u hav to provide the statement, or give the details of its copyright which shows u can use it legally.

in the glossary it seems we can use our own words as long as its clear? wat do u guys think? i think is a good idea, it will show we actually do kno wats going on.

honestly, i was a little surprised to get an email back, she got back to me within a couple of days. But, she sed it was fine, thanked me for asking n wished me all the best haha


--z3254753 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

do we make up glossary definitions ourselves?

--z3254753 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

hey guys, sorry bout the late reply, i just got bak from work.

yup, i will do the copyright n summary for the tree diagram, one of my pictures i got written permission, i emailed prof. anne david, is the copyright info for that ok?


--z3292208 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to add a copyright statement if its from another website or if its one of your own pictures, all the details are on the editing page:

Editing Basics

I think its due thurs, not 100% sure.

--z3292208 06:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey also for the picture you uploaded when you click on it you can add a description there for it and also you need to add a copyright statement, have a look at my diagrams and copy it off that. Disorders is looking good, the detail is good.

--z3254753 10:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

haha no worries tegan, im also redoing the abnormalities so theres more in the paragraphs, kind of expanding on the tree diagram il hav all my upadtes, n more referencing by either late tonight or tomo =)


--z3292208 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey mark the tree diagram is good but make it a bit bigger on the page? and yeh put the terms in the glossary.

--z3254753 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

hey current research is good =) u know what I just thought, this section is a great place to have some external links, maybe to a couple of different research reserach teams websites or something. What do you think? N its meant to be for the peer level, so im sure its fine to go a bit deeper if u think u need to.

also, im making a tree diagram with pretty technical terms, should i emplain the terms here or just put their definitions in the glossary?

--z3292208 09:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys just a reminder to add any scientific words to the glossary at the bottom of the page. Also yeah i think we should aim to make this accessible to someone without a background in embryology or even science, so keep it clear, concise and easy to understand :)

--z3254753 13:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

,thanks heaps for the suggestions, il work on it =) i thought i did include how rarely problems occur?

i dont think we should include expenses or talk about state health care.

time delay n intro suggestions are both really good.

types of infections are good, but do u want me to go that technical?

i found iodine to be mostly used, but il include the ones, also a good idea, thanks.

glossary is where we will define terms

Here is one last thing to note; I dont know if u guys were there, but i talked to dr hill after the last lab and he was clear about these things; keep it clear, concise and dont make a 5000 word page for the sake of it, we will get marked down.

I really like what weve done, i think we'll hav an impressive project =)


--z3292208 01:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey also guys you should both check this site out


Mark i know you used it for part of your risks section but there's more detail on the site that you could add to your section, i just pulled some more detail off it for my parts.

Also there's some good information on that site for ethical issues and accuracy which you should really check out!


--z3292208 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys so this is what i think we should change for the final assessment:

  1. Glossary
  2. More referencing throughout.
  3. Add some external links if we find some good sites, or to a video.
  4. Add a timeline to the history section.
  5. Add a tree diagram to the disorder section.
  6. Add a section comparing all the techniques.
  7. Diagnostic accuracy needs to be added to.
  8. Ethical issues needs to be broken down from a large paragraph and referenced, and made more clear.
  9. Current research needs to be added to.
  10. Look into getting some more pictures.
  11. Some more risks could be added to the risk section.

What do you think? Did i miss anything, you think thats all we need to do?

Hey also i changed the headings in the page from bold to actual subheadings so that they all show up in the contents at the top of the page.

Just putting this here for myself:




Thankyou!! :) - Jill --z3265772 11:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

--z3292208 02:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jill yeah sure you can use it, as long as you reference me as the artist! yeah i think thats a good idea too adding a comparison between the different techniques, we're definitely gonna add something similar. enjoy :)

Hi Guys! I was just wondering if i could please get your permission to use your student drawn diagram, if you see our page im making a table with all our diagrams in it, and, of course, i need your permission to use it :) Thanks! Jill - group 2 --z3265772 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. --z3293029 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 3 - significant research into your topic evident on the page, so well done. The Abnormalities table is both concise and informative. The table along with the hand drawn images and other images makes the page more aesthetically appealing to the reader. I learned quite a lot about this procedure in one sitting which is a credit to your work. A few improvements would be to reference the Ethics and the Disorders Detected sections, maybe break up the text with the use of more tables and dot points which would simplify the content a little as it appears to be very technically dense. A glossary would help your audience in understanding the content more easily and maybe adjusting the jargon so that it's not so scientific but more conceptual. Again, like others have mentioned, some editing in terms of grammatical and spelling errors is needed throughout the page. Good effort. --z3241780 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GROUP 3: Amniocentesis

This project is the probably in my opinion the most scientific of all the project pages, but there are point where I felt that if I didn’t have an academic science background I would have got lost. Yet the information presented on the webpage is extremely informative and the structure of the page makes it easy to follow. Referencing for the first few sections is fine but towards the end I find that there are not as many references. The pictures which include the hand drawn pictures are really good and they help break the information into smaller section allowing time to process the information above. Like every other group there are a few spelling mistakes here and there but like I’ve stated on everybody’s pages you will pick them up on your final check. As well I noticed that you don’t really have a proper glossary and I think putting one in would be beneficial but this is just a small suggestion. Apart from that I can’t criticise the assignment. I personally think after reading your assignment the standard of my groups’ assignment should be lifted. You can really tell you have put in a tonne of effort. Well Done Guys!!!

--z3252635 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys!

You have a great distribution of your pictures around the page, it really breaks up the text and makes it easier to read and to look at. I noticed a few spelling/grammar errors throughout your page, though (e.g. “likelihood of baring a child” – it should be bearing) so you might want to proofread it a couple of times. It would make your text easier to read, too – your information is great but sometimes I had to read over bits a few times where the grammar was a little fuzzy. I think you’ve used the table really well to describe disorders detected by amniocentesis. Also, good job of putting the copyright statement with your student-drawn diagrams. Well done!--z3252833 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 3 = I really like the photos used especially the hand drawn ones and they project is very easy to read and follow. There are alot of references which indicated some serious research .

What could be improved - although everything is already beautiful glossary and timeline(for history)would be better..other than that everything is fantastic.--Navneet Ahuja 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 3: amniocentesis I found this project very interesting and it was very well written, by far it had a more scientific feel than the others. All of the images and tables were relevant and informative. I felt that I learnt plenty about the particular diseases that the diagnostic technique could find as there was plenty of detail on this.

What could be improved? Probably some more pictures from sources other than Wikipedia.

--z3254433 07:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys, This project is very well written, and also easy to follow. i really, really, (really!) liked the disorders section, with the table, graph and pictures it made it really easy to follow, and interesting! when you see a picture like the anencephaly one, it makes you stop and read what its about! I also like how many student drawn diagrams there are, you have really put in a lot of effort. I definitely learnt a lot from reading this page, Thanks!

What could be improved: The ethics section has no references, also the current research section seems to be copied straight from the internet, be careful with this, while it is referenced in one part, it is still plagiarism to copy and paste, you need to re write in your own words and reference. there are also a few spelling mistakes in the ethics section - waranted=warranted, phsychological=psychological

--z3265772 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

--Group 3 Amniocentesis

This group has shown a vast knowledge of the topic and has more than enough information from a number of sources. The diagrams that were hand drawn were very effective and clear to help the reader gain an understanding of the topic. On what can be improved: The size of the headings could be a little bigger to be more clear, also the same with the pictures, use them to break up the paragraphs which will make the page easier to read and take in the information. Thanks guys you did great.

--3290040 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This project was very well written and highlighted the main points of amniocentesis. The structure of it was very clear which made it easy to understand and follow. I feel that it was a good project addressing students and people who don't know much about this area.

What could be improved is that there were no references in the ethics section which may be a problem. Also a glossary may be needed at the end of the page.

--z3291079 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This project is very informative and did a good job in stating what the test is about and explainning how it is carried out. I really like the uses of sub-headings making it very easy to follow. However I feel that there are too little information in the accuracy of the diagnosis although the percentage is quite high, using only one study to support the accuracy does not seem to be convincing enough.

What I think could be improve would be looking up a meta-study which compares the studies done on amniocentesis to provide more information about its accuracy and how reliable it is with respect to the various disorders which it can detect.

--3216889 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally found the introduction to resemble that of an essay; I don't think an outline of what the webpage consists of is completely necessary seeing as there is a table of contents. A Glossary and proof reading are also needed. Other than that Your web page is great. The table of disorders that you have included is encompassing and simple enough to easily follow. It s a very well-rounded overview of Amniocentesis and I congratulate you on a job well done!--z3252083 12:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Page layout was nicely organised! It had logical flow and was simple to understand. History was covered well, and prodedure was explained very thoroughly and was quite scientific yet simple about the information on what happens in the lab, ie. karotyping. The student drawn images were drawn really well and shows good amount of effort that has been put into them and it supplemented the text really well. The pie chart and the picture I found was very eyecatching and made me more interested to read about the topic. Ways to improve is to expand on the current research and add a glossary at the end. Overall good job! --z3224500 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


--z3292208 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually guys you know what I just realised. VERY IMPORTANT PLEASE READ THIS: Mark (Hill) told us that peer assessment was due today and we're not allowed to edit the page until the peer assessment is over which is next thursdays lab. Meaning we only have from next thursdays lab, 23rd, to the following monday, the 27th to finish the page.


--Mark Woods 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

yea soz lack of references is my bad, i havnt dont it this week coz i kinda got a mid session on friday ive bin concentrating on.

c u tomo =)

--z3292208 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i think its looking good, slight lack of references but we can fix that after i guess. and we should prob polish it up a bit and make sure it reads heaps smoothly but we can do that after i guess. hmmm missing sections does not look good tho! looking forward to seeing everyone at the lab tomorrow. see u then

--z3254753 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ok last nite before peer review, do we need anythin else to do? i think it looks very gud for peer review, besides the missing sections:S we can change and add after peer review of course

--z3254753 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

yea. dont worry, mayb its just my computer lol

--z3292208 10:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The actual heading "Risks"? It looks normal on my page...

--z3254753 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

nah its better like that :)

another lil detail i tried to fix was that the "risks" heading is pushed over from the picture. how do we fix that?

--z3292208 06:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey also hope you dont mind i made ur pie pic a little bigger cos i thought it would look good like that but feel free to change it back if you want!

--z3292208 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry lol i forgot to tell u, he mentioned it in the last lab

Hey also that pie diagram you put in maybe make it as a thumbnail and add a caption to the bottom of it saying what it is?

Cant believe out of all the disorders mentioned you had to put that picture up!

--z3254753 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

omg y ddnt u tell me! i thought we had to hav it done for peer assement today :S. thats much better though =)

--z3292208 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey mark your section is looking good.

I really dont think we should put those other sections up they dont read well at all.

Also mark said to us in the last lab that you missed that the beginning of this thursdays lab is the last time we're allowed to edit our pages and from then the peer assessments start and we have until the following lab to assess everyone elses group project so we have until then, hopefully before then we'll get a reply back from mark or . And also other groups have missing sections so they must have people missing too

--z3254753 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

so this is what i have, i think its gud enough for peer assessment. I plan to add more to disorders, both chromosomal n neural tube defects are gonna get more info on the main ones. I also want to expand on my table with more disorders and student made drawing of tree diagram catagorizing chromosomal defects.

Tegan, do you think this is enough for tomorrow?

And im ripping straight from the discussion page just to have something other the other headlines, it will b more embarrassing to have blank sections, so i figured well throw in wat he was planning to write

--z3254753 11:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

yes they can be, such as Klinefelter's syndrome, i think thats wat i sed isnt it?

he got bak to my first email from like wednesday last week n sent an email, i hav since sent a couple of msgs which hasnt resulted in anything, i dont know wat to do!

--z3292208 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey i read the chromosomal disorders bit you added about translocations etc, cant disorders also be genetic like sex linked diseases carried on the X chromosome?

Has mark gotten back to you at all? He's away this week too which is a bugger...

And yes a very nice moustache lol

--z3254753 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

dr murray barr had a glorious moustache lol

--z3254753 03:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

haha yea it makes things a little easier :) just check out wen looking wat kind of licensing it has

--z3292208 02:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez why couldnt you warn me before! yeah thats heaps good, so much easier.

--Mark Woods 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Check out the copyright details


yes i guess its not straying from the topic.

--z3292208 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think thats straying too far at all cos those are the exact things amniocentesis prevents so it just shows how useful the procedure is!

actually pics of what goes wrong during amniocentesis would be good too (i.e in risks).

how can you use that photo? cos its from wikipedia? hmmm.... giving me some ideas lol

--Mark Woods 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It freaked me out too! We can actually use that image on our page if we want lol thanks for the picture ideas.

I will be expanding on the disorders section, and its a good idea to include photos of ppl wit the ssyndromes look like. Im only concerned about straying to far from the amniocentesis topic?

--z3292208 01:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Omg mark i was just looking at the links you put in your disorder table (thats really cool by the way) and i looked at the Anencephaly one, did you see the pic on that page??? freaked me out lol

hey but also are you gonna put more detail under that section too?

--z3292208 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey mark,

Oh forgot to mention that article just lists those complications it doesnt actually go into any detail about them.

Uum not sure what to do about the missing sections, I could email 312 using his student email, is everyones just their student number then @unsw.edu.au?

Yeah speaking of pictures i found it really hard getting permission for pictures, thats why i drew a couple but i still want to try find one of the scientists. Yours i think would be better getting pics of people affected by the disorders you talk about? what do you think? Or you could find one maybe of the neural tube and showing the top and bottom which is closes in normal development. just some ideas.

--z3254753 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks tegan, il do that today also, wat r we gonna do about the missing sections? :S

i emailed dr mark bout it but he hasnt gotten bak to me

also, any ideas forstudent drawn pics i could hav in my sections?

--z3292208 11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark

I just read in an article i was reading they make a comment about risks and they list a few but highlight that there are risks for the fetus and risks for the mother:

  1. Fetal complications = deaths from abruptio placentae,infection, fetal haemorrhage, and puncture of the fetus.
  2. Maternal complications = maternal haemorrbage, peritonitis, rhesus isoimmunization, and premature labour.


If you wanna have a look and maybe add to your section?

--z3292208 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah more detailed paragraphs sounds good, but as a summary the table is spot on.

--Mark Woods 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

yea i no wat u mean, ive confused myself a bit with wat is actually relevant to put in. I was gonna hav an intro, but how bout also paragraphs explaining the main ones? thats better place to puts pics of the chromosomal disorders n stuff.

--z3292208 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

hey mark,

table looks good, i thought it might be more detailed but i guess that covers everything. you should put some more references in though, im still working on mine, and also you referenced a website i used a couple times, on the how to reference page there's a way to put multiple references in the page from one link so check that out.

also some pics would be cool for the disorders if you could find them? im gonna try find some pics for my history section, im in the process of getting permission to use a picture of cells with a Barr body, the part that shows the sex of the fetus, which Murray Barr discovered.

Oh and yeah maybe put a column in for Type thatd be good.

Anyways our page isnt looking as good as last years! i guess its missing a third of it though...

--z3254753 03:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

guys im working on the table, im not sure bout the columns, maybe i shud have Disorder, Type(chromosomal), Cause, Diagnostic rate using amniocentesis?


also tegan, maybe a headshot of a couple of the scientists? ur section looks finished, so that idea is only if ur at home bored :P

--z3254753 02:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

u guys shud check out all the intructions just to make a table haha

--z3254753 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

aight il hav most of disorders done tonight, but il put it on the project page tomo

thats kinda what ive bin doin, i gave a lil intro to it before the table.

--z3292208 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey mark yeh a table is a good idea how about having quite a simplified table first just showing the different chromosomal and neural tube defect just as a little summary then after it have headings and go into all the detail? you could also add a picture column in the table for each disorder? or put that with the bulk of info either way i guess. sounds good tho!


--z3254753 06:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

hey guys,

with disorders, I was thinking bout doing a table. ive got an intro n separate the disorders into chromosomal abnormalities and neural tube defects to talk bout in paragraph form, but i was thinking of a table to show the different disorders. what do you think? Or do u think i shud stil go through the main ones individually n then hav the table?

also, a table wud break up all the paragraphs :P

--z3254753 08:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) yea, its stil not working, cud b somethin wit my computer not sure. its just not letting me edit the project page, im tryin to put the refernces in to risks.

which is also weird coz im having no trouble rditing this discussion page.

--z3292208 07:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you testing the page mark? lol. still having troubles with the site?

--z3254753 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

hey, the added section is great. I was gonna go through wat is being looked for for each of the disorders i look at (e.g the presence of an extra 21st chromosome). for some reason its not letting me change my risk section, so ill keep going with my other section n come back to it and itll hopefully work.

--z3292208 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just putting this here for myself:


--z3254753 07:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

haha just read through it, yea the sentence cuts out, thatnks for proof reading. ill check out ur section soon, my computer has decided it doesnt want to open our project page

--z3292208 06:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey also i added more detail to the end of my procedure section just about how they treat the sample once it gets to the lab and chromosome mapping etc, do you wanna read it and tell me if it makes sense to you and isnt too much science lingo or hard to understand at all?


--z3292208 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good you can still have a section on miscarriages and just mention that it is the common result of all the other complications. Just to make it a bit clearer for people who dont know anything about it.

But yeh it looks good otherwise! yeah that one line i was just like what that doesnt make sense lol

Oh and i just mean that sentence about the mothers immune response did you forget something on the end of it or something? I just dont understand it is all

--z3254753 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

whoops that was from the draft lol i confused myself reading the study.

and i kinda rushed my section on the rhesus factor, i just went off wat ive learnt before. il go back over and make it more clear.

I wasnt sure whether to make miscarrages its own section because its connected to all the risks, its like the ultimate bad result for all the risks, thats why i thought it should go in the intro.

I will fix up the intro, seperating into actual introduction and miscarriages, wat do u think?

--z3292208 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey also what did you mean in the top bit where you said "This cannot be attributed to the procedure of amniocentesis."?

--z3292208 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey I had a look, looking good. That first section though it sort of was a bit confusing when i first read it, maybe put an intro to risks and then a subheading just about miscarriages and what causes them (uterus contracting etc) and put those stats in there? The physiological risks is really good, its really clear and easy to read.

This sentence doesnt really make sense when i read it:

"A transfer of blood would stimulate an immune response by the mother against the different blood type, the result being that the mother’s own immune system."

But yeah other than that its good!


--Mark Woods 06:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

just uploaded risks. definitely needs pictures or something to break up the text.

wat do u guys think?

--z3292208 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh i dont mind slipping it into mine unless you can elaborate on it and it fits well in yours? Maybe we can decide once both sections are up and have a look. But in that article in the results section its got some good statistics for you about still births and miscarriages.

--z3254753 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the reference help :)

and i think it does fit better under eligibility, it works under my section as well because its about reducing unnecessary risk, but in this case we should keep it all together.


look through this and see whether it fits in your section, no rush.

--z3292208 03:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dammit i dont know how to put the reference in without it making an actual reference lol but have a look in the edit version!

--z3292208 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay so here is what you put in the page where you want the reference [1] but you put the pubmed article number in the middle and when you save it all the details appear at the bottom reference section on the page.

That abstract is good, i guess from that we can say something like "As observed in a study carried out in the period 02-05 it can be seen that an increased risk of Down syndrome is a major reason that most women choose to take the amniocentesis test, compared to suspicious ultrasound findings which was not listed as the basis for many womens choices. And then reference that article.

But about that, where it says "increased risk of Down syndrome" do they mean increased risk due to the mother being over 35? If you reckon thats what they mean we should probably write that instead, like write the cause of the increased risk you know.

But yeh not sure did you want to add this into your risk section? Do you think it fits? I can put it in my section where i covered whose eligible for the procedure and you can focus more on the risks and the things that could go wrong like miscarriage and all that. What do you think?

--Mark Woods 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

this is an abstact:

This is a retrospective review of case notes of all pregnant women undergone amniocentesis in our department during the period 2002-2005. Two main operators performed the procedure, using 22 gauze needle usually and 20 gauze should longer needle was needed. Sevendy three patients undergone amniocentesis. The reasons for having this procedure were: increased risk for Down syndrome in 68% (50/73), maternal request in 24% (18/73), suspicious ultrasound findings in 4% (3/73) and family history in 3% (2/73). Maternal age ranged from 20 to 45 years and the gestation time that amniocentesis was performed was 15 to 23 weeks. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and culture were used in order to obtain karyotype results

--z3292208 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, percentage of mothers having children over 35 and women with histories of genetic disorders and all that? Like statistics from a specific study?

For pubmed references go to the page in edit version and have a look at what i put for it, you copy and paste that and just put in the pubmed number for the article you used where the number is in the middle. The other references you have to write it out but have a look at the how to reference on the site down the left hand side.

--z3254753 03:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ur rite about repeating urself. I found some research where they give percentages of occurence of each reason. I guess this allows me to be slightly more specific or technical which is should be expected from my section. what do you think.

how did u do the references?

--z3292208 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark thats looking really good! The emotional state of the mother part is heaps good i didnt realise you could find out specific hormones but thats really interesting. That beginning bit though about the guidelines present to assess whether a mother is in a top priority for the procedure I covered in my section so maybe we shouldnt repeat ourselves or it will sound a bit repetitive? I guess you could just mention there are certain women more suited to the procedure due to the number of risks but maybe focus more on what causes the miscarriage if it occurs?

Also we can put more than one student drawing but i think we need at least one. We do need more pictures in it though.


--z3254753 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

general outline for risks.

Risks There are risks involved in the procedure of amniocentesis. There is a chance, however small, of a miscarriage As stated before, only certain people should undergo the procedure because of these reasons. This involves: • Maternal age is considered, women older than 35 are at a higher risk of having children with chromosomal disorders.[2] • History of chromosomal disorders in the family, testing if the parents are Rh positive or Rh negative.[3] • History of previous children born with a genetic defect. These guidelines allow for properly measuring the risk of the procedure against knowledge that can be gained from it. A doctor or genetic counsellor should be consulted prior to the test.


Amniocentesis should be performed at a time when enough amount amniotic fluid can be taken for diagnosis without affecting the course of the pregnancy. Generally, this is around weeks 15 -19. As indicated under the procedure section.


There is a risk of infection with amniocentesis. It is intrusive as it requires contact to be made with the amniotic fluid by a needle through the skin, abnormal wall and uterine wall. The transfer of bacteria can occur if the needle and area of needle insertion into the lower abdomen of the woman are not properly sterile. This risk is lowered by all persons involved in the procedure properly washing their hands and working in a sterile environment. Swabbing the area where the needle is inserted is the most common method of keeping these areas clean. This also leads to the possibility of transfer of blood plasma from the foetus to the mother. This can cause major issues in the instance where the rhesus (Rh) factor of the baby is positive and the mother is negative. A transfer of blood would stimulate an immune response by the against the different blood type, the result being that the mother’s own immune system.

Foetal contact

The chance of the needle hitting the developing foetus is a risk factor. This can be avoided by constantly using ultrasound o see the position of the developing foetus. Psychological Risks

The emotional state of the mother can have affects on the outcome of the pregnancy. Learning if the baby has conditions can lead to an emotional state such as depression and anxiety. These are the effects of results that amniocentesis gives these social issues. These can elevate levels of certain hormones which imbalances the pregnancy such as citrol, influencing concentration levels of others in the blood, activating receptors, release of adrenaline, effects on blood pressure and nutrient supply to the baby.

tegan, i stole one of ur paragraphs, just coz it fit so well. il change it wen i put it on the assignment page. il better explain the hormonal changes due to stressed, thats fine. Ill put this up on the page, along with its references n then disorders by thursday night.

Risks are covered pretty well in ur procedure section Tegan, so i refer to it a few times :P

--z3254753 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

hey the drawing is really good!

Did we only need one student drawing?

--z3292208 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey yeh it was good, altho only half the class turned up.. The week after the break we have a new lecturer whose taking the lectures and lab too. Let me know if u think the drawing I did is ok :)

--z3254753 06:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

how was the lab yesterday guys? soz i missed it

--z3292208 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

history links:

procedure links:

--z3254753 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

N yea uploading mine in the mid sem break =)

--z3292208 09:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Hey Mark the breakdown for risks and disorders looks like a good structure, looks like you'll cover everything.

--Mark Hill 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You have the major headings and some content added to some sections (but not all) on your project page. I cannot see any additional resources, images that you have sourced from other scientific sources, nor the student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.

--z3254753 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

so this is how I've divided up my sections further

risks: for each risk;

what is it? Why is this a risk (eg infection, hitting the fetus)

how is this risk reduced?

At which stage is performing amniocentesis most risky.

Stats of how often problems have arise in pregnancy connected to amniocentesis

Disorders: I can't just write a whole thing on each, as much as I'd like to, it'll b like having a whole section on disorders, not amniocentesis. So For each of the main disorders:

intro-discription, rates in birth

what stage of pregnancy can this be detected?

how it is tested for / detected

what do they look for? Eg variation chromosomes

why do they look for this? This mite belong in ethics but by this title I mean why do they test for this genetic disorder.. Is there some level of seriousness in a family history that warrants this test.. They test for each thing individually once they hav the amniotic fluid sample.


--z3292208 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Hey guys just wanted to remind you this is due 2 weeks tomorrow ok!

--z3292208 03:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark I put on the page a picture of trisomy 21, Down sydrome, to slot in the disorders section.

--z3292208 11:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the procedure:



Picture to put in from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532964/

--z3292208 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Key scientists:

  • Douglas Bevis
  • Murray Barr and Ewart Bartram
    • In the 50's the use of amniocentesis was used to find out the sex of the baby, not originally to diagnose chromosomal or neural tube defects.
    • 1949 were the first to study if the sex of a fetus can be found using amniocentesis anaylsis, and with that the possibility of sex linked diseases like hemophilia (a disorder of blood clotting).
    • The way the sex could be found = female cells have a cellular body attached, called the Barr body or sex chromatin, and male cells don't. This extra body, the sex chromatin, can be seen under the microscope.
    • Until amniocentesis in the 1950's, the only diagnostic technique used to warn women of having a child with a sex linked disease would be statistics based on family history, which was nothing more than loose probability.
    • Therefore is the sex of the baby could be found out pre-birth (along with the genomes of the mother and father of certain disorders), more reliable statistics could be calculated as to whether their baby might have a sex linked disorder.
    • http://www.ohiostatepress.org/books/Complete%20PDFs/Rothenberg%20Women/05.pdf
  • Fuchs and Riis
    • 1956 they were the first to successfully determine the sex of a baby using amniocentesis by the presence of a Barr body.
  • Steel and Breg
    • 1966 noted that amniotic fluid cells were able to be karyotyped, chromosomes can be analysed.
  • Dr. Carlo Valenti = 1968 first to use amniocentesis to diagnose a chromosomal/inherited disorder.
  • 1980's ultrasound techniques took out the guess work to guiding the needle during the procedure.


Who is eligible for the test?

  • Since the procedure is invasive and therefore not without a number of risks, numerous tests are taken before to decide whether the mother is in the top category of women with a high chance of having a child with chromosomal or neural tube defect disorders.
  • These pre tests include:
    • Checking for abnormal ultrasound features
    • Maternal age is considered (>35 high risk of chromosomal disorders)
    • History of chromosomal disorders in the family, Rh +ve/-ve of the parents.
    • History of previous children born with a genetic defect.

When can the test be taken?

  • Most commonly during 15-16 weeks of gestation (during the second trimester), but can be done between weeks 14-20.
  • Second trimester amniocentesis is between weeks 15-18 (commonly wk 15-16).
  • Early amniocentesis is in the first trimester between weeks 11-14.
    • Has shown to have a rate of 3 times the rate of miscarriage.
    • Early amniocentesis has been conducted since the delay in the tissue analysis of an average of 2 weeks means if abortion is the option taken it is physically harder for the mother at a later stage of pregnancy, and emotionally as well.
    • The more common time is during second trimester since there is less risk of miscarriage and complications, and if an early diagnostic test is requested, CVS is a more recommended option.
  • Tissue culture takes a further 2-3 weeks before a result can be found.

Steps of the procedure

  • Counseling for the mother = review of genetic family history and history of any birth defects in previous children of the mother. Mother is also informed of the risks associated with the procedure, and is able to make a decision to continue based on weighing up the risks with her personal calculated chance of having a fetal abnormality.
  • Area is cleaned before needle insertion with an iodine solution.
  • Local anesthetic may be used but since there is little pain it usually isn't used to avoid having a second needle insertion.
  • Needle inserted and 15ml fluid taken, takes approx 30 seconds to withdraw the fluid.
  • Before the needle is inserted and whilst the needle is inside the uterus ultrasound is used to avoid harm to the baby and placenta.
  • After fluid is taken the baby's heart beat is checked to ensure there was no harm.
  • Fluid is cultured, the chromosomes are mapped = called karyotyping.
  • http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/melb_us/Amniocentesis_melb.htm
  • http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/Prenatal%20Testing/prenataltest-amnios.htm
  • Amniotc fluid taken out is centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 minutes and then filtered. The filtrates are then scanned in a recording spectrophotometer.


  • For diagnostic accuracy, comparing this technique to other techniques, I read that Chorionic Villi Sampling (CVS) can be used earlier on in the pregnancy, but the disadvantage of that is there is a greater risk of miscarriage. So there is a pro and con for amniocentesis against CVS.
    • Also i just thought to include in diagnostic accuracy, what about the occurrence of false positive results?? Are there any statistics relating to false positive cases, if there have been cases what were the outcomes, has there been any incidence of abortion as a result of a false positive for a disorder? (That could be an ethical issue too, are women more wary of the procedure in case it isnt 100% reliable and there is a chance of false positives?).
    • Have a look at this site too for diagnostic accuracy, there's a whole section which looks really useful, it says that even if the results of the test are 'normal' doesn't guarantee a normal baby, it also explains how some chromosomal tests can be ambiguous and an unsure diagnosis can result leaving mothers with uncertainty. http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/Prenatal%20Testing/prenataltest-amnios.htm
  • For risks, Evidence supporting the 1% risk of miscarriage statistic in the article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923654

--z3254753 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another point on ethical issues is the ethical decisions to be made if a problem is found. Is it ethical to terminate a pregnancy if it is found the child will have mental retardation? What factors are involved when making these choices? I don't think there is a right answer for everybody, so maybe its important in this section to present ethical arguements for all sides.

So yea, I think you've covered all the ethical issues, nice work!


--z3292208 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For ethical issues i was thinking more along the lines of is the test too invasive for the mother? Not necessarily the risks (thats being covered separately) but would many women be unsure about the procedure because it is invasive and possibly painful, do people believe there are other techniques that could be as effective and more attractive to women. In this we could also do a brief comparison between amniocentesis and other diagnostic techniques, the positives and negatives of the procedure against others.

Also another ethical issue would be the choices the mother would make if a positive test of a disorder was found.


--z3292208 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

okay so I'll do 1 & 2, mark 3&4, 5,6,? if you think it's too much I don't mind picking up 5, let me know.


--Mark Woods 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC) yea, i can do 3 and 4 thats a good split :)


--z3292208 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Im happy to do the first 2? 5 and 6 arent too big so maybe someone can do the last 3? and then someone do 3 and 4 (Mark if you wanted to do that?). Do you think thats a fair split?


--z3254753 13:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

hey guys, nice work with the refernces, I think those sub catagories work well. I've been looking for references, Im not sure how to link it but I was on pubmed n found something that could work for current research, its actually an alternative to amniocentesis. I figured we could use it to compare the two, and discuss why they're looking into an alternative.

[and emerging techniques of fetal cell separation from maternal blood]

As for dividing up tasks, we should do that asap. I wouldn't mind getting to sink my teeth into what genetic orders can be detected, and I'm up for any other.


[on population-based prenatal screening and diagnosis of Down's syndrome]

[between serum biochemical markers and early amniocentesis in diagnosis of congenital fetal anomalies.]

accuracy - [| Accuracy of real-time polymerase chain reaction for Toxoplasma gondii in amniotic fluid. ].

ethics -



--z3292208 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some links to start off:

Historic background: http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html

Procedure: http://www.mjbovo.com/Pregnancy/PregAmnio.htm

Risks: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-risks-of-amniocentesis.htm

Main risks include 1) Miscarriage or pre-term labor, statistics have reduced in recent years. 2) Infection through the needle to the mother. 3) If the placenta is accidentally pricked mixing of neonatal blood and mothers blood may occur causing a condition where the mothers immune system attacks the fetus as a foreign body. This occurs due to a difference in blood type, one being Rh-positive, one being Rh-negative, although this can be tested before the procedure (checking the parents genotype) and extra care can be taken. 4) Harm to the baby from the needle, but ultrasound reduces this significantly.

Risk of miscarriage is less than 1% according to http://www.genetics.com.au/pdf/factsheets/fs17c.pdf.

Disorders detected: Amniocentesis takes a sample of the amniotic fluid containing fetal skin cells, from these they can look at the baby's chromosomes and detect any chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18. The sample taken can be tested for neural tube defects by looking at the amount of the protein alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), e.g. spina bifida and anencephaly (disorder where the top end of the neural tube fails to close during week 3-4 of development leading to portions of the brain and skull not being formed, usually leading to death before birth or very soon after). http://downsyndrome.about.com/od/diagnosingdownsyndrome/a/Amnio_ro.htm http://www.anencephaly.net/anencephaly.html

--z3292208 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys so I've rethought the structure a bit and added some detail that we should look into:

1. Historic background:

- When was it first used?

- How was the technique developed?

- The key scientists involved.

- Trends in its use.

2. Procedure

- Who is eligible for the procedure?

- Are there women/couples more suited to the test? (e.g family history in genetic disorders or previous birth with a genetic defect)

- When is the test taken during pregnancy?

- How is the procedure performed? Method, steps involved.

3. Risks

- Side effects, complications, short and long term (short term like infections, long term possible effects to the baby, abortion or induced early birth?)

- Could do an advantages/disadvantages table maybe?

4. Disorders detected

- What components of the amniotic fluid do they isolate and analyse, and what do they test for? (I read that there are a few hundred disorders that they can test for but the parents and doctor only choose certain ones for them to test, and also there are some main ones so maybe we'll just pick the most common ones and do those, e.g. chromosomal disorders like Down syndrome and neural tube defects like spina bifida).

5. Diagnostic accuracy

- How accurate is the testing, statistics.

6. Ethical issues

- Professional and public opinions about the test, is it a more common diagnostic technique?

7. Current research

- Is there any current research being done to improve the procedure? There may not be...

What do you guys think? If there's anything you think we should add post it up top (apparently we're supposed to post new things at the top of the page) if not then we should think how to split up the workload so we can start getting into it.


--z3292208 00:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Areas to look into:

1. Historic Background

2. Procedure, method.

3. Complications

4. Benefits, what disorders can be detected and prevented, option of abortion.

5. Current research on the procedure

Anything else you guys can think of to include?

--z3254753 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

nice work! i think '4.Benefits, what disorders can be detected and prevented, option of abortion' would be a big one, maybe whoever takes that one just has that point, and the other two ppl take two points each? what do you guys think?

hi everybody!

  1. <pubmed>XXXXX</pubmed>