Talk:Cervical cancer

message: Hello, I am a student from Rice University interested in writing a page on women's cancer disparities in the U.S. and I hope to elaborate more on cervical cancer disparities based on socioeconomic status, race, sexual orientation, geographical factors, and more. Please feel free to check out my talk page for my page proposal or to provide me any feedback or suggestions. Thank you! Mtran99 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest in creating a page dedicated to women's cancer disparities in the U.S. 

message: Since many women assume that if they have an abnormal Pap result that means they have cancer, it might be well to add brief coverage of the prognosis for various abnormal Pap results.  (e.g. if have LSIL or HSIL result what are the chances that have Cancer/likelyhood to develop.)  Castle would probably be a good reference for this.  (Have to look up the rest of the citation.) Zodon (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis - should add for Pap results 

message: A recent edit by an IP user added some material about possible association between circumcision and cervical cancer.  I reverted the edit since it removed sourced content and the reference they provided was not clear.  As far as I can tell "Male circumcision and HPV transmission to female partners" may have been the reference they intended.  I could not add back appropriate coverage since I don't have access to the article at the moment.  Zodon (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male circumcision and HPV transmission to female partners 

message: I've just been told by someone that hers was caught at 15. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence rate by age? 

message: I merged the content in cervical cancer staging back to this article, because apparently it doesn't seem to be able to develop acceptably as an independent article, and has gotten no other links to it from other articles. Therefore, having it as a separate article merely complicates the reading of this article, because the treatment-section is highly dependent on precise staging, so we need a detailed description in cervical cancer in order to make it complete. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. As this page is just a general overview having this sort of details is a little much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging back from [[Cervical cancer staging]] 

message: The recent edits by User:Medstudent2014, are among those we were asked to look at. The ones here have removed this source with 2010 EU guidelines, replacing it with a US one. Mostly the content seems similar, but the EU guideline ("screening policy" section) says: "...cervix screening, which should start in the age range 20–30 [12, 13], but preferentially not before age 25 or 30 years, depending on the burden of the disease in the population and the available resources." contradicting both the old and, even more, the new text here - it was "Cervical cancer screening is typically recommended starting at age 21", now "...cervical cancer screening should begin at age 21". 
This is just based on a quick look, without knowlege of the sources or if they are still the latest. Further scrutiny might bwe a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits - screening section 

message: Thank you User:Johnbod for commenting about my edits. My edits are based on the U.S. guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The guidelines that I have included in my edits come from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and include the most up to date screening guidelines for cervical cancer in the U.S. Therefore, I have updated the page to include the statement "in the U.S." to clarify this discrepancy.
Medstudent2014 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that for your own educational purposes US guidelines are probably enough. But Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Systemic bias), and so far your edits have removed a reference to the EU guideline, and not corrected or explained a discrepancy that was already there, but which you have heightened, between the EU vs the US guidelines, re the best age to start screening. Putting "in the US" where you did makes it unclear how much after that only covers the US. The unqualified statement "cervical cancer screening should begin at age 21" still remains.  Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

text: You make a great point. I added a statement about the European Guidelines. Medstudent2014 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, much better. I've added a quote re the Preferentially 25-30 bit, despite the odd English. The UK NHS offer it to all of 25 & over, which I expect is EU-typical in practice (patient info page). Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment Response - screening section 

message: It's astounding that the awarding of the Nobel prize in medicine to zur Hausen for the discovery of the link between HPV and cervical cancer was not in this article before today....all I can say is 'wow'.  My face is red on behalf of Wikipedia.
:  Bfpage |leave a message  21:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Harald zur Hausen]]

message: I've removed the diagrams of exenteration for the time being, since they're not discussed in the text. The images of a radical procedure on their own with no explanation of the context in which the procedure is required are unnecessarily alarming for someone new to the subject who would have no idea what staging is associated with this procedure. I have no objection to the judicious use of an image provided sourced context is provided showing its application. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add some text to go with the images if you want. I do not see problems with the images by themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway have added some details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you've addressed my concern. It isn't my field and I tread with caution in medical subjects. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "exenteration" is not the best word. It simply means complete removal of the tumor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exenteration 

message: is currently getting web coverage (SlashDot, ArsTechnica), and may be worth adding to the relevant section when the article has had time for the experts to criticize it. RDBrown (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer mortality rates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cervical cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804173650/http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/MRC002621 to http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/MRC002621
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) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is not B-class per the WPMED quality scale. It has had maintenance tags since at least 2015, has many dated sources and information, and does not appear to have been kept updated or accurate.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not B-class