Talk:Endometriosis

message: There is new research about the possible causes and treatment of this condition. 73.45.84.188 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: new research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indeed, they are probably all included in "" 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Primary sources, [[WP:OR|original research]], [[WP:MEDRS]] 

message: *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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12917784
2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Environmental

message: 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)
thread_title: Notable cases

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: * more reviews that might be helpful:  -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Epidemiology case reports

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New source 

message: Coming over here in response to a query at WPMED. Under Endometriosis#Genetics we state "", 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) ""  Searching PubMed led me to a 2012 primary study  that states, ""  That seems promising, until you follow ref 4 (, 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  in The Lancet stated ""  I plan to add the latter estimate and citation to the article.  -- Scray (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk among relatives 

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I saw '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)
replies: text: Agree. Have been busy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with recent edits 

message: "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 theoryKoninckx PR, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Implantation versus infiltration: the Sampson versus the endometriotic disease theory. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1999;47 Suppl 1:3-9. considers subtle lesions as a natural physiologic phenomenon occurring at least intermittently in all womenKoninckx PR. Is mild endometriosis a condition occurring intermittently in all women? Hum Reprod. 1994;9:2202-2205.  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)
replies: text: Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have moved it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement to introductory paragraph 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130055039/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/endometriosis.cfm to http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/endometriosis.cfm
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) 22:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the reminders. I am glad that you don't mind. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "outdated, primary source" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Number affected

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Queen's University Student Editing Initiative  

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing your proposed article improvements. Comments are posted in your sandbox.JenOttawa (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments in your sandbox. Thanks.JenOttawa (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments in your sandbox. ThanksJenOttawa (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes to Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Risk factors and cause is more or less the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why can't we make a "Cause" chapter ? 

message: 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

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 

Please correct it or let me know it is OK to correct it. Memdmarti (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sexism/Misogyny (limited female perspective) 

message: I need to speak to someone as soon as possible 174.242.206.28 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  media University Texas 

message: In the section "Magnetic resonance imaging", the phrase "although it can be used to detect the most common form of endometriosis with a sufficient accuracy" is unclear. "Although it can accurately detect .." or "although sometimes it can accurately detect ..."- which is it?71.230.16.111 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor wording issue