Talk:Endometriosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Women's Health (Rated B-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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Reproductive medicine (Rated B-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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
 


Outdated information - Endometriosis is actually common in teenagers and young girls[edit]

(from the article) "It is most common in those in their thirties and forties.[4]"

This information is wrong and outdated.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 [2]."[1]


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 [1] 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[edit]

Sections moved to here to see if anyone has sources compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. All of this text is based on primary studies or non-MEDRS sources; please locate secondary reviews per WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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. 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[edit]

  • 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. [2]

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

German wikipedia says that the prevalence in women who were exposed to dioxins in the Seveso (Italy) accident is higher than in not exposed women. (Thomas Steck, Ricardo Felberbaum, Wolfgang Küpker, Cosima Brucker, Dominique Finas: Endometriose. Springer-Verlag, 2004, ISBN 3-211-00746-6 (Volltext in der Google-Buchsuche). 2001:8003:A928:800:D59B:D443:FCBB:BAE9 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Tobacco smoking: The risk of endometriosis has been reported to be reduced in smokers.[3] 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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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.[9] Avoiding foods high in hormones and inflammatory fats also appears to be important in endometriosis pain management.[citation needed] Eating foods high in indole-3-carbinol, such as cruciferous vegetables appears to be helpful in balancing hormones and managing pain.[10] 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,[11] 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.[12]
  • Physical therapy for pain management in endometriosis has been investigated in a pilot study suggesting possible benefit.[13] 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[edit]

Moved from article. Please review Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes (if this text is warranted and cited correctly, the correct section is "Society and culture") and Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

Epidemiology case reports[edit]

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[edit]

(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.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. 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. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  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. 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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[15]", 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.[4]" 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 Face-smile.svg Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

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

Conservative treatment[edit]

"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[edit]

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

Pronunciation?[edit]

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

Problems with recent edits[edit]

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-Wikipedia 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[edit]

"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[1] considers subtle lesions as a natural physiologic phenomenon occurring at least intermittently in all women[2]. 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia users also, often use Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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"[edit]

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[edit]

This source puts the global number effected at 10.8 million.[4] 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)

Queen's University Student Editing Initiative[edit]

Hi! We are a group of medical students from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichmond3 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

We knew a woman with severe endometriosis even though this was not diagnosed. She and the people around her just took that to be her lot in life that she was often debilitated. It was not known to her and her people there existed a condition like that. She refused to do a driving license, even though that would have been kind of necessary, because she said she could not tell people 'I cannot drive because I have got my period'. She often spent two days in bed, three when she was younger. She said she had never wanted children anyway but when the pain got worse and worse, periods were never regular, she did not think that using that part of her body would be a good idea. The only medication which helped was Zomax, but that was withdrawn from the market. It should be time to revisit Zomax or tweak the chemical formula? 124.182.232.203 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

This section was deleted by User:Doc James as "Too tangential." Both sources are stories of misdiagnosis of endometriosis, which is apparently rather common. Both readings seem appropriate for medical personal and patients who might view our article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a difficult diagnosis that often requires laparoscopic surgery to make.
We say "In the UK, there is an average of 7.5 years between a woman first seeing a doctor about their symptoms and receiving a firm diagnosis" which gets this point across.
A couple of random stories are not really notable in this article. Fine on the page about the subject in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
What is the "page about the subject in question"? Are you talking about the talk page? User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about Hilary Mantel. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that including the real experiences of patients is appropriate. Not everyone who comes to this page is looking for a statistic. Some of them are looking for a deeper form of understanding. "It takes 7.5 years" is encyclopedic, but it does not communicate the full reality. That's not "just" seven and a half years; that's seven and a half years of unexplained and poorly controlled pain, and seven and a half years of sick leave, and seven and a half years of wondering whether it's cancer, and seven and a half years of thinking you can't pursue your career goals because you're too sick, and seven and a half years of of having doctor after doctor downplay your symptoms, or say things like "It's just cramps – try some Motrin" (because American healthcare providers even use the gender-specific marketing name for plain old ibuprofen when they think it's gynecological) or send you on a wild goose chase through all the specialists, and then say that it must not be anything because it didn't turn out to be the eight things that the six specialists actually considered for more than a quarter of a second. I think that some of our readers would be better informed and more educated about this condition if we presented them with a couple of high-quality sources about real patient experiences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Article[edit]

Hello, we are a group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:

We propose the following changes for these indicated sections:

1. Signs and Symptoms

a. We propose to update citations in the sentence below in the #Other section. The current citation for symptoms of diarrhea and constipation is a cohort study published in 2010. This source does not meet Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources criteria. The citation for chronic fatigue is also missing so we are adding a citation for this evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erichmond3/sandbox

Comment in your sandbox. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

b. We propose to remove the pelvic pain paragraph from #Other and edit the #Pelvic pain section to include new information. You can view the new edits in the following sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erichmond3/sandbox To remove: “In addition to pain during menstruation, the pain of endometriosis can occur at other times of the month. There can be a pain with ovulation, pain associated with adhesions, pain caused by inflammation in the pelvic cavity, pain during bowel movements and urination, during general bodily movement like exercise, pain from standing or walking, and pain with intercourse. The most severe pain is typically associated with menstruation. Pain can also start a week before a menstrual period, during and even a week after a menstrual period, or it can be constant. The pain can be debilitating and the emotional stress can take a toll.[20]”

The last three sentences of the removed paragraph will be added on to the first paragraph under #Pelvic pain.

2. Pathophysiology

a. We propose to add 2 subsections under the “Pathophysiology” section to address the role of oxidative stress in the development of endometriotic lesions

b. The first section would be entitled “Oxidative Stress: Iron Overload”

c. Under “Oxidative Stress: Iron Overload”, the following paragraph will be added: "Influx of Iron is associated with the local destruction of the peritoneal mesothelium, leading to the adhesion of ectopic endometrial cells[1]. Peritoneal iron overload might be due to the destruction of erythrocytes, which contain the iron-binding protein hemoglobin, or a deficiency in the peritoneal iron metabolism system.[1]"

d. the second section will be entitled “Oxidative Stress: Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)”

e. under “Oxidative Stress: Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)”, the following paragraph will be added: "Oxidative stress activity and reactive oxygen species (such as superoxide anions and peroxide levels) are high in endometriosis and are known to damage tissue and induce proliferation[1]. There are several pathways for oxidative stress to induce proliferation of endometriotic lesions such as the mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinase and extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) pathway. Activation of both pathways lead to increased levels of c-Fos and c-Jun, proto-oncogenes associated with high-grade lesions.[1]"

Reference 1: Oxidative Stress and Endometriosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:7265238. doi: 10.1155/2017/7265238. Epub 2017 Sep 19.

f. the changes can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AquilaAking

Thanks for sharing your proposed article improvements. Comments are posted in your sandbox.JenOttawa (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Diagnosis

a. We propose to make the following changes to the structure of the article; order of headings Endometriosis#Diagnosis, such this it goes “Laparoscopy” then “Vaginal ultrasound”.

b. We propose to insert the following content into the Endometriosis#Laparoscopy subsection: “Laparoscopy is also the only currently accepted way to determine the extent and severity of endometriosis.” [1]

c. We propose to add a subsection under Endometriosis#Diagnosis called Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Our proposed changes and paragraph can be found in the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sab.lawal/sandbox

::Comments in your sandbox. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Genetics

a. We want to provide a clear concise introduction sentence to the section

b. We propose to insert a table summarizing the main gene loci that are relevant to a predisposition of endometriosis. By including a table of the loci we also want to include details regarding the gene product of the particular loci. This will help provide a better foundation for readers to understand what particular cascades may be involved, as well as serves as a platform of other topics to look into for greater detail if that is what they desire.

c. Proposed changes can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adicarlo1996/sandbox

Comments in your sandbox. Thanks.JenOttawa (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

5. Epidemiology

a. We propose adding in a sentence on the prevalence of endometriosis and how this varies by age groups. Currently, the wording is unclear and the prevalence quoted does not agree with the existing literature. By using a recent source that surveys the prevalence rates across studies of endometriosis, we will provide a more accurate estimate of how many women are affected worldwide. i. We propose removing: “One estimate is that 10.8 million people are affected globally as of 2015. Other sources estimate about 6-10% of women are affected.”

ii. We propose adding: “Establishing a prevalence for endometriosis has been made challenging because definitive diagnosis requires surgical visualization of the affected area [1]. Criteria that are commonly used to establish a diagnosis include pelvic pain, infertility, surgical assessment, and in some cases, magnetic resonance imaging. Altogether, these studies suggest that endometriosis affects approximately 11% of women in the general population [1].”

iii. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30017581

b. We also propose including a brief description of endometriosis recurrence rates. This information is currently missing from the epidemiology section and could describe how many individuals experience endometriosis recurrence after treatment. There are also known factors that affect the rate of recurrence which could be commented on.

i. We propose adding: “The rate of recurrence of endometriosis is estimated to be 56% over a 5-year period [1]. The rate of recurrence has been shown to increase with time from surgery and is not associated with the stage of the disease, initial site, surgical method used, or post-surgical treatment [1].”

ii. Ref: https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(17)30571-0/fulltext

c. Proposed changes can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanJosephJ/sandbox

Comments in your sandbox. ThanksJenOttawa (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Social and Cultural Aspects:

a. We propose to expand on the economic burden of endometriosis. Currently the analysis is superficial and only covers loss of work days and does not analyze the many other direct and indirect costs of the chronic condition.

i. Delete the current paragraph on “The Economic burdens of Endometriosis”

ii. Add: “The economic burden of Endometriosis is widespread and multifaceted. Endometriosis is a chronic disease that has direct and indirect costs which include loss of work days, direct costs of treatment, symptom management, and treatment of other associated conditions such as depression or chronic pain. (1). One factor which seems to be associated with especially high costs is the delay between onset of symptoms and diagnosis. Costs vary greatly between countries. (2)” 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17056043 2: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5a9/e0134a372beb0620e742b7ec12f85751dc2b.pdf

b. We also propose creating a section outlining organizations focused on advocacy for endometriosis. These include national resouces, fundraising initiatives, and research efforts.

i. “Organizations such as the Endometriosis Foundation of America (2), Endometriosis Research Center (3), and the Endometriosis Network Canada (1) are just a few of the many organizations worldwide which are advocates of Endometriosis. These organizations offer patient resources, fundraising, awareness and advocacy, and research efforts for Endometriosis 1: http://www.endometriosisnetwork.ca/ 2: https://www.endofound.org/ 3: https://www.endocenter.org/

c. We also propose to include public advocates and famous celebrities as many individuals use their experience to raise awareness for the condition.

i. “There are also many public figures who speak out about their experience with Endometriosis. Notable people include Whoopi Goldberg (4), Mel Greigs (5), and Julianne Hough. (6)” https://www.endofound.org/blossom-ball-2009-whoopi-goldberg https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/radio-presenter-mel-greigs-shocking-photo-shows-reality-of-living-with-endometriosis/news-story/4638a8c8899928d4ebb8dfd82ef820a7 https://www.today.com/health/julianne-hough-endometriosis-i-just-thought-it-was-normal-t116059

Our proposed changes can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LordHaveMRSA/sandbox

AquilaAking (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments in your sandboxes. These edits should be given time for community consensus as per WP:EL external links are different from WP:MEDRS. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we make a "Cause" chapter ?[edit]

Doc James I am thinking that we could make for exemple stress in that chapter instead of stating it in signs and symptoms (see ref) thanksWalidou47 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Risk factors and cause is more or less the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not agree that it is more or less the same, a cause is more of a direct A to B thing.Walidou47 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian link[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I do not undestand if there is a reason to use a Russian translation.

The ref name="John2013"> at Endometriosis#Surgery is to a Russian translation while the PMID and DOI are to the English versions. If there is not a reason for this then

<ref name="John2013">{{cite journal | vauthors = Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L | title = Consensus on current management of endometriosis | journal = Human Reproduction | volume = 28 | issue = 6 | pages = 1552–68 | date = June 2013 | pmid = 23528916 | doi = 10.1093/humrep/det050 | url = http://reproduct-endo.com/article/download/30268/26983 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

which links to a Russian translation -- Google Translate of the first paragraph looks like a direct translation -- at

http://reproduct-endo.com/article/download/30268/26983

needs to be replaced with

<ref name="John2013">{{cite journal |vauthors=Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L |title=Consensus on current management of endometriosis |journal=Hum. Reprod. |volume=28 |issue=6 |pages=1552–68 |date=June 2013 |pmid=23528916 |doi=10.1093/humrep/det050 |url=}}</ref>[1]

Please correct it or let me know it is OK to correct it. Memdmarti (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You can remove the URL link. It is not needed when a ref has pmid and doi parameters. I thought there was a bot or AWB script that did this, but it may be confused by the ref definition coming later than the first use. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L (June 2013). "Consensus on current management of endometriosis". Hum. Reprod. 28 (6): 1552–68. doi:10.1093/humrep/det050. PMID 23528916.
Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexism/Misogyny (limited female perspective)[edit]

Literally, the Latin root of misogyny invokes biologically female reproductive organs. While the section of famous people who have struggled with endometriosis helps provide balance, a lot more needs to be done address the latent bias in both how endometriosis has been addressed in the past and how it’s still misunderstood today. Felis Bieti (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)