Talk:Contraceptive patch

message: Does anybody know if it's safe to wear the patch 4 of 4 weeks instead of 3 of 4, if only for one cycle? Or if it's safe to only be without a patch for 3 days or so instead of 7? Thank you.
You oughtn't wear the patch at all. Chooserr 06:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anybody know

message: ...Free Republic is what passes for a source these days?--Aolanonawanabe 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So basically?

message: A link to the news page of an anti-drug website that doesn't cite it's sources is not a reliable source. Until you can produce a reliable source, it should stay out.--Sean|Black 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit 

message: --Aolanonawanabe 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: *[[User_talk:Musical_Linguist#Contraceptive_patch|sigh]]* send in the 
clow-
 meatpuppets

message: Clarified that the effects being blamed on Evra (blood clots, thrombosis, etc) have been observed in users of the pill as well, and that no research is yet available to show how much more likely it is (or even if it is more likely) to occur in patch users.  This is stated in the already referenced newspaper articles, and it didn't seem very NPOV to me to simply state that someone died on the patch and a lawsuit resulted without putting it in context with other similar hormonal birth control issues.   Col.Kiwi 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification (Lawsuit) 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Claiming a three-fold increase in risk of death ("The Associated Press in 2004 demonstrated that the risk of death from using the patch is three times the risk of death from oral contraceptives.") based on such fine-grained measurements such as 1/200000 versus 3/200000 is grasping.  Further, the claim in the first paragraph "The Patch has been associated with higher rates of strokes and thombosis than combined contraceptive pills" is unsubstantiated (vague, non-specific and unreferenced). -trax 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skewed statistics 

message: Is this really a valid section?  And with a link to "God," no less?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.240.117 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religion & the patch" 

message: I would like to treat this parameter the same on all the hormonal contraception articles.  Please read my opinion and discuss this issue at Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Weight parameter in infobox. LyrlTalk     C   21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight gain parameter in infobox 

message: This article states that it is generally thought to be just as effective as the pill. I'd like to see a source on that, first of all. Secondly, is that all it is? A thought? Or is it proven to be as effective? Ceejus 18:08, 04 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Contraceptive Technology as a source.  In clinical trials the failure rates for patch were similar to those with COCs (i.e. theoretical failure rates similar).  Typical use failure rates have not yet been published, so the patch is presumed to be at least as good as COCs in typical use.  If anything, the patch may have a typical use failure rate that is lower than that for COCs, since in clinical trials the patch was more likely to be used correctly and consistently than COC, and errors with the patch appear to be less likely to result in ovulation. (Contraceptive Technology, Chapter 12, by Kavita Nanda, Page 272).  So it has been proven to be as effective, the main question is if it is more effective in typical use.  Zodon (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness? 

message: What is with this link? http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/31895
I'm skeptical on this source. First of all, it is not by CBS, so it's weird that it is the link for fact supposedly from a CBS report. 75.73.32.46 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media monitors kinda questionable 

message: The second paragraph under Lawsuits, telling of a Georgia woman's lawsuit for a pulmonary embolism, needs to checked and probably deleted.  Using the link http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/31895 provided by the article shows the lawsuit is against a "Triaminic Vapor Patch", NOT a birth control patch.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.130.83 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please eliminate misleading paragraph 

message: Can a section on the differences in strength between OrthoEvra and Evra be mentioned? I believe part of the lawsuit hinges on the fact that OrthoEvra was a higher strength and therefore more risky than Evra, and J+J allegedly knew this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.224.111 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength differences 

message: In the article, it says OrthoEvra is the only patch sold in the US. It's actually discontinued as of about February 2015. There is a new generic patch named Xulane that is sold by Mylan and is now the only patch sold in the US. This information should be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.15.186 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrthoEvra is now discontinued in USA, please update 

message: I think this article should be absolutely redone, starting with the title. This should be renamed to Evra-patch and have a separate one for contraceptive patch, which actually talks about contraceptive patches, as there are more than one! 
http://pipeline.ctiexchange.org/products/gestodene-and-ee-patch
www.lisvy.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanASR (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  OUTDATED!  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contraceptive patch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050126093817/http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/patch.htm to http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/patch.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified