Misplaced Pages

Talk:Endometriosis

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dratman (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 4 February 2018 (→Number effected: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:21, 4 February 2018 by Dratman (talk | contribs) (→Number effected: spelling)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Endometriosis.
WikiProject iconWomen's Health C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation / Reproductive C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).

Outdated information - Endometriosis is actually common in teenagers and young girls

(from the article) "It is most common in those in their thirties and forties."

This information is wrong and outdated. I propose removing and replacing it. It is a common endometriosis myth that young girls and teenagers do not have the disease when in fact they do: http://endometriosis.org/resources/articles/myths/

"Before the introduction of laparoscopy in the 1970s, endometriosis could only be diagnosed during a laparotomy, major surgery involving a 10–15 cm incision into the abdomen. The risks and costs of a laparotomy meant it was usually done only as a last resort in women with the most severe symptoms who were past childbearing age. Because only women in their 30s or 40s were operated on, the disease was only found in women of that age. Subsequently ‘the fact’ arose that endometriosis was a disease of women in their 30s and 40s."
"Most recently the Global Study of Women’s Health, conducted in 16 centres in ten countries, showed that two thirds of women sought help for their symptoms before the age of 30, many experiencing symptoms from the start of their first period ."


I myself had to wait nearly 20 years from the onset of symptoms at 13 years old. Possibly due to this erroneous belief among gynaecologists and was diagnosed laparoscopically in my 30's only after the disease had progressed and ruined my career and life so far. The diagnostic delay of this illness is a serious problem in the medical field and for those affected and should be acknowledged as such. Similar stories are common in support groups.

-Anonymous Endo sufferer 2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the scientific source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509296

2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If you get the NIH to update their page here that would help.
I am not seeing were it says endo is most common in this age group here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509296 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay added "can begin in women as early as 8 years old" Thanks for raising this :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources, original research, WP:MEDRS

Sections moved to here to see if anyone has sources compliant with Misplaced Pages's medical sourcing guidelines. All of this text is based on primary studies or non-MEDRS sources; please locate secondary reviews per WP:MEDRS. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews, and this template filler can be used to generate citations from a PMID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the entries below are from reliable primary sources, and as such may be included as adjuncts to information in secondary literature. I think it may apply to the ones describing metabolic changes, but on the other hand, there are so many such entries, so it may still be better to find one or a few secondary sources that describe all of them. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, they are probably all included in "Brosens I, Benagiano G (2011). "Endometriosis, a modern syndrome". Indian J. Med. Res. 133: 581–93. PMC 3135985. PMID 21727656. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)" that you suggested below, and probably in a preferable prose format rather than what was more like a "list of substances that are lower or higher in people with endometriosis" without any knowledge about the actual direction of causation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Environmental

  • Environmental Exposure to TCDD and PCBs: Previous work in nonhuman primates has shown that exposure to the dioxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is associated with an increased prevalence and severity of endometriosis. Further animal experiments have implicated dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in this disease. Rodent studies support the plausibility of a role of environmental contaminants in the pathophysiology of endometriosis, although a convincing mechanistic hypothesis has yet to be advanced.

2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Tobacco smoking: The risk of endometriosis has been reported to be reduced in smokers. Smoking causes decreased estrogens with increased breakthrough bleeding and shortened luteal phases. Smokers have an earlier than normal (by about 1.5–3 years) menopause which suggests that there is some toxic effect of smoking on the follicles directly. Chemically, nicotine has been shown to concentrate in cervical mucous and metabolites have been found in follicular fluid and been associated with delayed follicular growth and maturation. Finally, there is some effect on tubal motility because smoking is associated with an increased incidence of ectopic pregnancy as well as an increased spontaneous abortion rate.

Metabolic changes

Endometriosis correlates with abnormal amounts of multiple substances, possibly indicating a causative link in its pathogenesis, although correlation does not imply causation:

Endometriosis is a condition that is estrogen-dependent and thus seen primarily during the reproductive years. In experimental models, estrogen is necessary to induce or maintain endometriosis. Medical therapy is often aimed at lowering estrogen levels to control the disease. Additionally, the current research into aromatase, an estrogen-synthesizing enzyme, has provided evidence as to why and how the disease persists after menopause and hysterectomy.

Other treatments

  • One theory above suggests that endometriosis is an auto-immune condition and if the immune system is compromised with a food intolerance, then removing that food from the diet can, in some people, have an effect. Various dietary recommendations are made in popular media. For example, common intolerances in people with endometriosis are claimed to be wheat, sugar, meat and dairy. Avoiding foods high in hormones and inflammatory fats also appears to be important in endometriosis pain management. Eating foods high in indole-3-carbinol, such as cruciferous vegetables appears to be helpful in balancing hormones and managing pain. However, these popular claims are typically not supported by scientific studies. According to one scientific study, diets high in fat and low in fruit and β-carotene were associated with a lower risk of endometriosis, contradicting the typical idea of a healthy diet. Consumption of omega 3 fatty acids, particularly EPA, as a food supplement has been suggested as a therapy for endometriosis.
  • Physical therapy for pain management in endometriosis has been investigated in a pilot study suggesting possible benefit. Physical exertion such as lifting, prolonged standing or running does exacerbate pelvic pain. Use of heating pads on the lower back area, may provide some temporary relief.

Notable cases

Moved from article. Please review Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes (if this text is warranted and cited correctly, the correct section is "Society and culture") and Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Notable cases. This is nothing but a list, poorly sourced, bare URLs, and nothing in it to establish anything about these people having made a lasting impression upon public perception of the condition. Think Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's disease, Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's disease, Magic Johnson for HIV, or the significant amount of published journal articles about Samuel Johnson and Tourette syndrome. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of trivia or an indiscriminate list. I have never heard of Marilyn Monroe having any impact on perceptions of endometriosis: if there are sources that cover the importance of these people to endometriosis, please bring them forward, but we don't need a poorly sourced list of trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Full text recent secondary reviews, compliant with WP:MEDRS, that might be useful (for gosh sakes, this article is citing a 1999 AAFP article!):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More sources

Epidemiology case reports

Of the 2 references given for cases affecting men and both marked unreliable, the first was a dead link, so I removed it altogether. The second mentions in the abstract that the patient died and no biopsy or autopsy samples were available to confirm the diagnosis. I'm not sure whether that's why it was considered unreliable for this purpose, so I substituted one that does include confirmation from biopsy samples, and therefore should at least be less unreliable. Pubmed only shows the abstract for that one, but the abstract says "Two previous reports of endometriosis in male subjects, who were also on estrogen therapy, are reviewed briefly.", so it may qualify as a review as well as a case report? In case it does, I removed the MEDRS marker - feel free to put it back if it doesn't. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on your research summarized here, and absent prominent coverage in a first-rate secondary source, coverage here of this incredibly rare circumstance seems WP:UNDUE. So, I've removed the sentence in question. -- Scray (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference list

(To all in-line citations above. Added by me) Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. http://endometriosis.org/resources/articles/myths/
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12917784
  3. Daniel W. Cramer, Emery Wilson, Robert J. Stillman, Merle J. Berger, Serge Belisle, Isaac Schiff, Bruce Albrecht, Mark Gibson, Bruce V. Stadel, Stephen C. Schoenbaum (1986). "The Relation of Endometriosis to Menstrual Characteristics, Smoking, and Exercise". JAMA. 255 (14): 1904–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1986.03370140102032. PMID 3951117.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. Griffith JS, Liu YG, Tekmal RR, Binkley PA, Holden AE, Schenken RS (2010). "Menstrual endometrial cells from women with endometriosis demonstrate increased adherence to peritoneal cells and increased expression of CD44 splice variants". Fertil. Steril. 93 (6): 1745–9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.012. PMC 2864724. PMID 19200980. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. Juhasz-Böss, I.; Hofele, A.; Lattrich, C.; Buchholz, S.; Ortmann, O.; Malik, E. (2010). "Matrix metalloproteinase messenger RNA expression in human endometriosis grafts cultured on a chicken chorioallantoic membrane". Fertility and Sterility. 94 (1): 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.052. PMID 19345347.
  6. Bourlev, V.; Iljasova, N.; Adamyan, L.; Larsson, A.; Olovsson, M. (2010). "Signs of reduced angiogenic activity after surgical removal of deeply infiltrating endometriosis". Fertility and Sterility. 94 (1): 52–57. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.019. PMID 19324337.
  7. Ouyang, Z.; Osuga, Y.; Hirota, Y.; Hirata, T.; Yoshino, O.; Koga, K.; Yano, T.; Taketani, Y. (2010). "Interleukin-4 induces expression of eotaxin in endometriotic stromal cells". Fertility and Sterility. 94 (1): 58–62. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.129. PMID 19338989.
  8. Sharma, I.; Dhaliwal, L.; Saha, S.; Sangwan, S.; Dhawan, V. (2010). "Role of 8-iso-prostaglandin F2alpha and 25-hydroxycholesterol in the pathophysiology of endometriosis". Fertility and Sterility. 94 (1): 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.141. PMID 19324352.
  9. Dian Shepperson Mills and Michael Vernon. "Endometriosis a key to healing and fertility through nutrition". endometriosis.co.uk.
  10. "Pain, Infertility, Hormone Problems? :: Health and Disease :: Women's Health Issues :: endometriosis". Alive.com. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
  11. Trabert B, Peters U, De Roos AJ, Scholes D, Holt VL (2011). "Diet and risk of endometriosis in a population-based case-control study". Br. J. Nutr. 105 (3): 459–67. doi:10.1017/S0007114510003661. PMID 20875189. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. Netsu S, Konno R, Odagiri K, Soma M, Fujiwara H, Suzuki M (2008). "Oral eicosapentaenoic acid supplementation as possible therapy for endometriosis". Fertility and Sterility. 90 (4 Suppl): 1496–502. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.014. PMID 18054352. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. Wurn, L; Wurn, B; Kingiii, C; Roscow, A; Scharf, E; Shuster, J (2006). "P-343Treating endometriosis pain with a manual pelvic physical therapy". Fertility and Sterility. 86 (3): S262. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.699.
  14. http://www.drdonnica.com/celebrities/00004929.htm
  15. http://www.clearpassage.com/blog/struggles-with-endometriosis/
  16. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27407271
  17. http://www.endofound.org/padma-lakshmi
  18. http://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2004/03/25/1829440.htm
  19. http://www.shape.com/celebrities/endometriosis-scare-julianne-hough-lacey-schwimmer

New source

If anyone is interested, I ran upon this source which links Endometriosis and female attractiveness. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/21/women-with-severe-endometriosis-may-be-more-attractive/?intcmp=obinsite.--v/r - TP 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Risk among relatives

Coming over here in response to a query at WPMED. Under Endometriosis#Genetics we state "There is an about 10-fold increased incidence in women with an affected first-degree relative.", with ref 15 linking to an article at eMedicine (not exactly our best sourcing); even worse, following that link takes you to the statement (under Genetics on the Etiology page) "Studies have shown that first-degree relatives of women with this disease are more likely to develop it as well." Searching PubMed led me to a 2012 primary study PMID 23167810 that states, ""Endometriosis has long been recognized as showing heritable tendencies, with a 5- to 7-fold greater incidence risk for first-degree relatives." That seems promising, until you follow ref 4 (PMID 10711828, a 2000 review article), in which Table 1 has numbers that the citing study presumably summarized as "5- to 7-fold", but the words "relative risk" don't appear in that review (that said, the citing article is peer-reviewed and I think we could use that estimate). In agreement, a 2004 review article PMID 15541453 in The Lancet stated "The heritable features of endometriosis were first recognised more than 20 years ago when the risk for first-degree relatives of women with severe endometriosis was reported to be six times higher than that for relatives of unaffected women." I plan to add the latter estimate and citation to the article. -- Scray (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the etymology? This needs to be included.174.3.125.23 (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Conservative treatment

"Conservative treatment consists of the excision (called cystectomy) of the endometrium, adhesions,"

This is clearly surgical treatment which is not conservative. Conservative treatment is noninvasive treatment usually with medication. Am I not right?

JAMA evidence synopsis

doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17119 JFW | T@lk 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Just come across this disease for the first time. Pronunciation? Endometriôsis? Endometrîosis? Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

I reverted these edits.

  • The lead is meant to summarize the body, per WP:LEAD. New information should not be added only to the lead.
  • You changed "6–10% of women" to "10% of young girls and women, many of whom begin experiencing symptoms at menarche", replacing a higher quality review with a primary source. We strongly prefer reviews for medical articles under WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, the new source does not use the term "young girls" or support the bit about menarche. Some sources argue that 10% may be an overestimate, so we should include the full range.
  • You removed the accurate statement that endometriosis is most common in older women.
  • You changed a line about differential diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain to be about co-morbid conditions, which is not what the source says.

KateWishing (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I saw EmmaFlock (talk · contribs)'s edits soon after they were made, but I didn't revert because there was off-Misplaced Pages stuff I wanted to do, and I figured that Doc James would see the material and revert. I'd overlooked that you were watching this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Have been busy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

New text

"Types of endometriosis : Endometriosis is not 1 disease

Clinically 4 types of endometriosis exist : subtle lesions, typical lesions, cystic ovarian endometriosis and deep lesions (for images of the different types .) Subtle lesions or non coloured lesions are small vesicles or flame like lesions. Typical lesions or powder burn or gunshot lesions are dark lesions in a white sclerotic area. Cystic ovarian endometriosis or chocolate cysts are almost exclusively found in the ovary. Deep endometriosis are nodular lesions similar to benign tumours.

The prevalence in women with pain and or infertility of subtle, typical, cystic and deep endometriosis is highly variable and estimated at some 80%, 50% , 20% and 3-4% respectively. The pain symptoms are highly variable being no pain, mild pain in 50%, severe pain in 70% and very severe pain in 95% respectively. Also the relationship with infertility is varies from no cause of infertility, a slight decrease in half of the women, a strong decrease of fertility also because of adhesions, to a questionable cause of infertility respectively.

It is traditionally believed, according to the Sampson theory that following retrograde menstruation endometrial cells implant and that these cells will subsequently develop into more severe lesions. Endometriosis therefore is considered a progressive and recurrent disease. In order to understand endometriosis, its symptoms and management, this however has to be changed. the endometriotic disease theory considers subtle lesions as a natural physiologic phenomenon occurring at least intermittently in all women. Following a genomic incident, and determined by the type of genomic alteration, the lesion will develop into typical, cystic or deep lesions, which are 3 different diseases Clinically typical, cystic or deep lesions therefore should no longer be considered neither as progressive nor as recurrent. This is fundamental for understanding surgery. Anyway, it is clear that

  • There is no evidence that subtle or typical lesions progress to more severe lesions .
  • Although these endometriosis lesions must have grown at some moment in the past, at the moment of diagnosis none of the lesions are progressive (except rarely a deep lesion- some 10 in 3000 ).
  • Cystic and deep endometriosis are clonal in origin.
  • For simplicity adenomyosis, peritoneal pockets, stromatosis and Müllerianosis, although forms of endometriosis are not discussed.

Most important is that considering endometriosis as at least 4 different diseases, is fundamental for understanding pathophysiology, symptoms and surgical therapy. , "

Sources are not sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


___

References

  1. Koninckx PR, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Implantation versus infiltration: the Sampson versus the endometriotic disease theory. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1999;47 Suppl 1:3-9.
  2. Koninckx PR. Is mild endometriosis a condition occurring intermittently in all women? Hum Reprod. 1994;9:2202-2205

Improvement to introductory paragraph

Hi Doc James. I presume, from your username, that you are a medical doctor. I am not, so, if so, I bow to your superior knowledge about endometriosis. In fact, until yesterday, although I had heard of endometriosis, I did not know what it meant! Because of an article I was reading in a newspaper, I just wanted a quick but accurate picture of what endometriosis means. So I turned to Misplaced Pages. I had no intention of reading the entire article - and I still haven't.

This is one mode in which I and, I guess, a lot of other Misplaced Pages users also, often use Misplaced Pages.

The main reason for my edit, yesterday, was that in order to understand the term "endometriosis", I really needed to know something else that I did not know - specifically, what the endometrium is, a word that was previously not mentioned until more than 1,000 words into the Misplaced Pages article, and, to build a little more detail into my picture of endometriosis, it was helpful to have some idea where the abnormal tissue is commonly sited.

Yes and the sentence "The endometrium is the inner lining of the uterus." remains. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

By "other bit" I presume you refer to my second sentence, "In endometriosis, endometrial material grows ectopically outside the womb - commonly on the outer surfaces of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, the uterus, the bowel, and on the peritoneum - the membrane lining the pelvic cavity." And, if so, you are right that the article "already said that other bit below". But it was more than 2,000 words below! True, I could have gone searching thought the contents list and found "localisation" then jumped to that text to read it.

By low I meant a couple of sentence lower as "Most often the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and tissue around the uterus and ovaries are affected; however, in rare cases it may also occur in other parts of the body." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

However, the point is that with my edit in place as originally made, any reader could get a quick but accurate picture of the meaning of "endometriosis" simply by reading the introductory paragraph. I agree that my second inserted sentence repeats some information already in the first sentence (and I did for that reason consider rewriting and incorporating the first sentence into my slightly extended introduction) but it also introduces other material and an important related concept - ectopia, which I ensured was also linked to the relevant article, but which, now, after your edit, is not linked to from anywhere in the article and not mentioned until more than 1,000 words into the this article.

It is quite common for Misplaced Pages introductory paragraphs (and, in fact, for encyclopedia introductory paragraphs, in general) to contain material that is repeated and expanded upon later in the article.

I decided not replace the first sentence because it does provide a very short accurate and overt definition of endometriosis: i.e. it begins with the subject word, "Endometriosis is . . ." - something important which would have been lost if I had introduced the material in the 'logical' order of first defining "endometrium".

For all the above reasons, I believe that removing my second inserted sentence was a retrograde edit, rendering the article of less utility than with the sentence.


As to replacing my reference www.webmd.boots.com with one to the NIH website, I don't have a big problem with it. I agree, the NIH website is preferable because it contains less (looks like, no) advertising. But, this source is already linked to in the first footnote (and several others), whereas my reference provided another source not otherwise referenced in the article. However, the purpose of my link was to provide a source for the common sites of endometriosis, which I agree your link to the NIH site does, but it is now a superfluous reference because you have removed the information it was providing a source for!

There was, however, an error in the way my link was rendered, so that it linked to the main web site (www.webmd.boots.com) and not to the specific page on endometriosis (http://www.webmd.boots.com/women/endometriosis).

I don't know why the cite web tag works in this way, but it seems that it links to the url in its "website" attribute and not to the url in its "url" attribute, which would seem to be where one was intended to put the url of the link. The tag also reports as an error: "External link in |website", which seems to be the whole purpose of a web citation, so I think that the design of this part of Misplaced Pages markup needs looking at, to make it clearer what the tag is for and how it ought to be used. I note that the first footnote in the article (to http://www.nichd.nih.gov) also reports the same error. If you understand these issues, perhaps you would like to explain.

Hedles (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Have moved it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endometriosis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"outdated, primary source"

Regarding edits like this and this by Barbara (WVS), it would be better to replace the sources with updated and non-primary references instead of leaving the content unsourced. This is per the WP:Preserve policy. Also, per WP:MEDDATE, a source that is not within the five-year window of freshness does not automatically mean that the source is outdated. If research on the matter is the same, then a 2010 reference is not outdated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminders. As my habit, I go through an article before I begin extensive editing and place the tags where the content needs an up-to-date reference. As I add references, I remove the tag and move on to the next tag and locate appropriate sources. So I get it. Tagging helps me add content more efficiently. If someone removes the tag, I might assume that I corrected the reference and miss the content that needs to be better reference. I apologize for any annoyance that this may create with other editors. From the edit histories, it seems like no one minds this method of editing/adding content/adding references. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), if you plan to replace the source (or sources) you removed, which it seems that you do, then I don't mind. Otherwise, per past WP:Preserve discussions we've had (where you removed content in addition to sources and some content was lost as a result), I do mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminders. I am glad that you don't mind. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Number affected

This source puts the global number effected at 10.8 million. 10% of reproductive age women would be a much larger number (likely 200 million). Thus we provide both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a reference for the larger number. Thus removed it until a high quality ref is provided.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Endometriosis Add topic