Talk:Hypoestrogenism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2020, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ntran49, S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD, Ayangucsf, Vincent.Vu2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 13 proposed edits

Our goals:

1. Improve citations
2. Filling in the "Diagnosis" section
3. Include additional causes for Hypoestrogenism
4. Options for treatment (HRT) or possible prevention
5. Create a "Pathophysiology" section
6. Effects on different populations

Ayangucsf (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Group 13 7/28/2020

Note, refs go after punctuation (except dashes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, journal articles do not need accessdates-- the content is not changing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, do not add a URL to citation parameters unless it is a non-PMC link to free full text; otherwise, the DOI link takes the reader to the same place, and the URL link is redundant. When a URL link is given, readers expect free full text, not behind a paywall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, when you are using the same citation more than once, you can/should name the ref, and re-use it by the named ref, without duplicating the entire citation. See this example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, Wikipedia uses sentence case in section headings, see these edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia ref tips copied to User_talk:Memdmarti#Notes Memdmarti (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti there is an RFC underway somewhere about whether we should link non-free-full text via the URL parameter, so that might change, depending on outcome of the Request for comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Copied "FC underway" to User_talk:Memdmarti#Notes.

Thank you for the wording & addition at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Society_for_Reproductive_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=972764964 Memdmarti (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Group 14 Peer Review

Part 1: 1) Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework"? Yes, the group's edits did improve the article as described in guiding framework. The group added a lot more details about the subject by adding section of pathophysiology and updating treatments, s/sx and diagnosis. For example, the group made extensive edits to define hypogonadism, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, all of which went previously undefined. The group has also added several reliable sources to cite their information.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has achieved their overall goals. They have added a new pathophysiology section to the page. The diagnosis, treatment, and causes have more details written with reliable sources. The group successfully revised and improved this article. K. Jung, UCSF Pharm.D. Candidate 2022 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Pilaoucsf (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC) MAUCSF (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC) D Dickinson SF (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Part 2: 1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? if not, specify... The article provides a comprehensive and neutral description of hypoestrogenism. Statements are presented factually, and without author bias. The treatment section provides an overview of possible treatments for hypoestrogenism without endorsing any treatment in particular. For example, "Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can be used to treat hypoestrogenism and menopause related symptoms, and it has been used to treat low estrogen level ... HRT treatments for hypoestrogenism vasomator symptoms include different forms of estrogen: 1) conjugated equine estrogens ... Micronized 17B-estradiol ..."

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? if not, specify... Yes, most sources are properly cited, secondary literature, and available to the public. Citations 17 and 18 appear to be duplications of the same source. Citation #3 is from a commentary on Medscape. Consider citing more objective literature in place of this citation. Consider adding citations from reliable sources to introduction portion of article.

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's annual of style? if not, specify... Convert treatment, pathophysiology sections from bullet points into sentences/paragraphs, more in line with Wikipedia manual of style. Article edits showed little evidence of jargon, not too technically worded and easy to digest

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copying violation? if yes, specify... Article edits put into plagiarism checker. The following sentences were found to contain possible plagiarism: “These lactobacilli process glycogen and its breakdown products to produce lactic acid, leading to an exceptionally low vaginal pH of ≤4.5.” Portions of article edits fed into Google search engine to check for any signs of plagiarism, some signs of copying violations found through Google search (i.e. pathophysiology section), consider summarizing a bit further to prevent copying violation D Dickinson SF (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Pilaoucsf (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC) K. Jung, UCSF Pharm.D. Candidate 2022 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC) MAUCSF (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It does little good to run a plagiarism check when most journal articles are paywalled-- you have to actually read the sources in most cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious

Since when is menopause a “disease state”? [1] Is that intended to be premature menopause? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: we did mean menopause, so I clarified it. Thanks. Ayangucsf (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Yes, much better, Ayangucsf (look at this section in edit mode to see how to thread responses by indenting to the next level with colins). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

Explanation needed for the relationship between estradiol and estrogen. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the changes work at Hypoestrogenism#Bone_health? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memdmarti (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Much better now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And, this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a sentence, and even if the grammar is fixed, the concept needs better clarification in plain English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is a snake that needs to be disentangled:

• Activated estrogen receptors also stimulate tissue proliferation in the vaginal walls and the formation of rugae, ridges formed by folding of the inner wall, aids in sexual stimulation by becoming lubricated, distended, and expanded.

what aids in sexual stimulation and what becomes lubricated? estrogen receptors aid, or rugae aid? There is something off with the grammar or the punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, this has been fixed. S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Linking needed

The first occurrence of relevant terms should be linked, terms should be linked only once (at first occurrence, and WP:OVERLINKing of common terms (like yoga) should be avoided ... the article is still considerably underlinked wrt gyn and medical terminology. Here are some samples of both over and underlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia: , thank you for keeping us updated with your edits and suggestions. We are currently working on it, and will get back to you Ntran49 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ntran49 and SandyGeorgia, Parallel concern re disambiguation page: I understand using the link to primary ovarian insufficiency only once, but the article also used POI, a disambiguation page with 22 items. The choices were allude to a disambiguation page, link POI to [[primary ovarian insufficiency | POI]] at all occurrences, or change POI to "primary ovarian insufficiency." I changed all POIs, except in the lead, to primary ovarian insufficiency. If it needs to be reverted, it is at Diff Memdmarti (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

If we revert to POI, then other than the 1st mention of primary ovarian insufficiency, all others will need to be changed to POI. No te: This is my 1st edit on a cell phone; please excuse formatting problems. Memdmarti (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I will start a new section below on this (the students haven’t edited for a month). There are more problems than just the linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The WP:LEAD should summarize text included in the body of the article. That is, any onformation in the lead should be already mentioned in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of text

Text that can be cited should not be removed just because it is lacking citation. [3]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jumbled

The content here is jumbled, making general statements about low estrogen from sources that are about subsets of causes. Cardiovascular statements sourced to articles about POI or even more specific, POI after cancer, are vut one example, there are others. Please reflect sources more carefully, Wikipedia is a highly read website and source of medical information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pings

@Ntran49, S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD, Ayangucsf, and Vincent.Vu2: just wanted to check if you are reading the talk page, since there has been no response on this page. The way Wikipedians build articles together is by using the talk page to communicate. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pings Response

@SandyGeorgia: I apologize for our lack of response. We looked at your contributions and talk page yesterday and fixed the article a little bit but never replied to any of your comments after that. We had a small Wikipedia tutorial from our school but are slowly figuring out all the tools and abbreviations Wikipedia has. Again, sorry for the lack of response and we will be more responsive in the future to make this article as high quality as possible. Vincent.Vu2 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Vincent.Vu2; I just wanted to ping you all to make sure you were aware of how to use the talk page :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary study readded

@S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD: thanks for fixing this; much better! I deleted this primary study once, but you have added re-added it. I saw that topic covered in one of the other secondary reviews, so secondary sources are available. I could try to re-locate the review where I saw it mentioned, but you all would be able to find it faster than I can, as you have better library resources and have all the sources at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry about that! I found the primary source mentioned in a meta-analysis which I have replaced the source with. S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary ovarian insufficiency, premature ovarian failure, and POI acronym

Continued from Talk:Hypoestrogenism#Linking needed

Memdmarti the students haven't returned to this article since August 6; since student editors rarely stick around or watchlist their work, we should resolve these items ourselves. You confused a bit four different issues that are occurring in this article:

• First, terms should be linked on first occurrence, and are rarely (but sometimes) re-linked later in the article. See MOS:LINK in conjuction with WP:OVERLINK. So, primary ovarian insufficiency had to be linked on first occurrence-- there were more links than needed. I have corrected that now.
• Second, acronyms that are used within an article are defined on first occurrence. POI is an acronym for primary ovarian insufficiency which is used in this article, and was correctly defined on its first occurrence. But it should not be linked-- it's just an acronym used here. You would not want to link it to a dab page, or to any page in fact. I have corrected that.
• Third, we need linking but not WP:OVERLINKing ... heart is a common word and it is unlikely anyone would click on it from here. An example of a missing link in the lead is hormone therapy (which I fixed), and another problem can be seen in the section labeled "Vasomotor". Vasomotor is neither defined nor linked anywhere in the article, so what is an uninitiated layreader to make of that word ? When we use a technical terms the first time, we need to define and link it. "Night disturbances" are undefined for the reader, and we don't have an article named that, so we need some sort of parenthetical definition. Rugae is linked on first occurrence, but many readers will be unfamiliar with that term, so we should have a brief parenthetical definition so that readers aren't forced to click out to know what that is.
• Fourth is a problem to be resolved. Primary ovarian insufficiency is a redirect to premature ovarian failure, set up four years ago. You can find the reasoning for that at Talk:Primary ovarian insufficiency. I don't know how strong that reasoning is, or what is the most common term used, but that is what needs to be correctly sorted here, there was limited discussion when that merge was done, and we should decide which is the most common term since this article is using a term that links to a different article-- are they the same thing? Was the earlier redirect a correct one? We did not have any ob/gyn on board at WP:MED at that time to help make that call. A Pubmed search on "premature ovarian failure", restricted to reviews and meta-analyses for the last five years, returns 124 results. The same search on "primary ovarian insufficiency" returns 205 results. If they are the same thing, then "primary ovarian insufficiency" is more common than "premature ovarian failure", and our article should be named that. If they are NOT the same thing, then we should not have merged the articles. Are the two terms completely interchangeable? You're the expert :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

-----

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Most interesting analysis! This is also part of the discussion at This_article_should_be_titled,_"Primary_ovarian_insufficiency. I will reference this thread there, include your review of 2016, and ping you as I did not see you in Talk:Premature_ovarian_failure.

1) Primary ovarian insufficiency, premature ovarian insufficiency, and premature ovarian failure are used interchangeably. See Medline Plus from SkepticalRaptor in 2018 Diff.

References

2) I followed up on your numbers for reviews and meta-analyses for ten- and five-years, looking at trials (clinical trial and randomized controlled trial) expecting a major difference. The trend ratios are what I expected, but not at the level I anticipated. Like what you found, the differences are not much.

• Review (reviews and meta-analyses for five years / clinical trial and randomized controlled trial for ten years / clinical trial and randomized controlled trial for five years / ration of r&max5/trialsx5))
• Primary ovarian insufficiency (215/47/17/12.6)
• Premature ovarian insufficiency (261/43/16/16.3)
• Premature ovarian failure (248/45/12/20.7)
• The reviewers are more likely to include premature ovarian failure in their papers while researchers include primary ovarian insufficiency. Since PubMed looks for any occurrence rather than the primary definition, I am going to analyze the 17 + 16 + 12 = 43 or fewer, due to overlap, more closely to see their definitions.
• I will look at the definitions and be back.

3) With the return to POI, what needs to be done to the two addition uses of primary ovarian insufficiency in text and in one section header? Memdmarti (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing else needs to be done now wrt that terminology or link; the issue is over at the other article (premature ovarian insufficiency) which may need to be corrected. I have pinged an admin for further guidance on next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Barkeep49 post here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)