Talk:Birth control/GA3

• This statement "Contraceptive use in developing countries has decreased the number of maternal deaths by 40…" should move to the end of the lede, as there is additional information about the use and effectiveness of contraception there, and also the conventional structure is introduction -> methods/tools/procedures -> effectiveness /utility.

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Some people regard sexual abstinence as birth control", "some people regard" could be removed.

Removed "people" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest: “In teenagers, pregnancies are at greater risk of poor outcomes (full stop). Comprehensive sex education and access to birth control decreases the rate of unwanted pregnancies in this age group.[12][13]”

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "After the delivery of a child (comma) a women (woman) who is not exclusively breast-feeding may become pregnant again as early as four to six weeks."

Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• When referring to the effectiveness of a method of contraception, this is given in at least four places: lede, introduction to methods, the table, and the section itself. Perhaps some trimming of the lede and introduction to methods section could decrease the redundancy and possibility for confusion.

No numbers are given in the lead (methods are only briefly compared to each other). The lead should also not contain anything that is not in the body of the text. We have the info summarized in a table. Will move some discussion from the lead of the methods section to the subsections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "While all methods of contraception carry some risk, the risk is less than that of pregnancy.[24]" meaning of 'risk' is unclear. I thought pregnancy was an effective method of contraception? (against a second pregnancy)

Clarified risk to "potential adverse effects" This is referring to stuff like blood clots and death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sentence "In those with specific health problems, certain forms of birth control may require further investigations.[30] " should be moved to top of paragraph, as it gives some context to the paragraph's topic.

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• First para: formats -> forms.

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• do not -> neither (neither/nor)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "however, the risk is less than that associated with pregnancy" I don't think this is relevant in this article about contraception.

When one looks at the risks of any medication one must compare it to a control group. The control group is not a non pregnant state but a potentially pregnant state. Thus the comparison to the risk that occur in pregnancy is key (pregnancy increase both the risk of blood clots and the risk of death in the mother). This refutes those who argue against birth control as it can cause blood clots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with this point won't affect the article quality, so I'm willing to demur. LT90001 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "not associated with an increased risk of blood clots" perhaps could be worded "whislt not increased with an increased risk of blood clots in veins, there is a slight increase in the risk of blood clots in arteries." As you do go on to state there is a risk of arterial thromboembolism.

Clarified. Progestin only BC other than the injectable version may be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I note that this paragraph has changed and reads much clearer. LT90001 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Globally condoms" -> "globally, condoms"

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Male condoms and the diaphragm with spermicide have similar typical use first-year failure rates (15% and 16%, respectively), with perfect usage of the condom being more effective (2% first-year failure vs 6%).[15] Condoms have the additional benefit of helping to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS.[9]" just to reiterate, this is where it starts to get confusing with pregnancy/failure rates first-year is and isn't mentioned, and also the STD prevention thing I mentioned above.

Okay added "some STIs". Adjusted the working of the first bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• First sentence "which is" is redundant

You sure? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Statement "They are a form of long-acting reversible contraception, and the most effective type of reversible birth control.[51]" is confusing. In the table you state that implanon is the most effective (0.05%). In the text you state that the most effective methods are surgery (which you state is somewhat reversible)

Surgery is not considered a reversible form of contraception. But agree and removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• You state here "As of 2007, IUDs are the most widely used form of reversible contraception, with more than 180 million users worldwide.[59] " but then state "The most common method in the developed world is condoms and oral contraceptives, while in Africa it is oral contraceptives and in Latin America and Asia it is sterilization"

Sterilization is not deemed to be reversible and thus is out of the calculation.

This leave the situation were in the developed world condoms and the pill are first and second followed by the IUD in third. In the developing world sterilization is first but out of the equation. Condoms are used in Africa but not so much elsewhere. Overall IUDs are the most common reversible method because 2.5 billion people live in India and China were usage is high. Thus globally in all countries the IUD is most. Can send you the table if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How interesting! Would love to have a look. LT90001 (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Short term complications are less likely from a vasectomy than a tubal ligation.[15] " does not provide any information about the likelihood or type of side-effects.

Added details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Some women regret the decision: about 5% over 30 years old, and about 20% under 30 years old.[15]" no time period or definition for 'reget' is given. "Regret following sterilization in men is less common comma at less than 5% comma with risk factors including younger age, an unstable marriage, and young children or no children.[61]" perhaps could be written -> "Whilst men are less likely to regret sterilsation than women (<5%), younger men, those with young or no children, or men with an unstable marriage were more likely to regret the procedure.""

The ref does not define a time period. The studies have looked at up to 28 years afterwords. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413851 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't read that well. Suggest: "This decision may cause regret in some men and women. Of women who over 30 years old who have undergone hysterectomy, about 5% regret their decision, as compared with 20% of women under 30 years old." and -> "In contrast, less than 5% of men are likely to regret sterilization. Men more likely to regret the sterilisation are younger, have young or no children, or have an unstable marriage.[64] In one survey of men who had undergone vascetomy who have previously had children, 9% stated they would not have had any children if they were able to do it over again.[65]" LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed the first bit. The 9% is of parents who have had children. Not necessarily those who have had a vasectomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In one survey of those who have children, 9% stated they would not have children again if they were able to do it over again.[62]" Not sure what you mean here. In parents who have vascectomies, 9% wish they had it earlier?

Of people who have kids 9% wish they hadn't. Clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah, surprised it's that low! (said with a grain of salt) LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In women the desire for a reversal is often due to a change in spouse.[63]" due to -> associated with

Changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• " Rates of success in fathering another child are between 38 and 84%" (in one year or in total); being lower overall ("overall" is a tautology here) in those in which a greater time has passed from the original procedure.[64]

Lifetime. Adjusted the working. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Sperm extraction followed by in vitro fertilization may also be an option in men.[65]" suggest move to article about vascectomy as this is a bit too much detail (birth control -> contraception -> sterilisation -> reversal of sterilisation -> strategies to mitigate).

Just one sentence. This is separate from reversal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest move "The withdrawal method, ... however, is poor.[66]" to the part about withdrawal to ensure there is no duplication or minor contradiction (as there is now)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest remove statement in Fertility awareness: "They are used by about 3.6% of couples.[68] " No comparative % rates are provided in other methods regarding use. If retain, suggest add "worldwide"

Added global. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "between 1 " -> "1%"

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Abstinence "compared to" -> "as compared with" (sorry, little bit of a grammar stickler)

Thanks and done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Non-penetrative sex and oral sex are also sometimes considered contraception" I think the intended meaning is "Additionally, to some teenagers the meaning of 'sex' may not include non-penetrative or oral sex". If I read this sentence literally, some teenagers think that oral sex is a method of preventing pregnancy: that is, prior to coitus, will have oral sex as a method of preventing pregnancy.

Clarified. Not entirely sure I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I still feel this is unclear. Perhaps you could add 'deliberate' to highlight the unspoken part about the motivation for non-penetrative sex, eg. "Deliberate non-penetrative sex without vaginal sex, or deliberate oral sex without vaginal sex, are sometimes considered methods of birth control." LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lactation. statement "it is 98% effective in the six months following delivery.[84] " is inconsistent, as you have used one year or lifetime as the cutoff for effectiveness in other sections of this article, so this stat can't be used comparatively.

Yes this is one required exception. It is only effective for 6 months. It cannot be used up to a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sentence "In those who are exclusively breastfeeding, about 10% begin having periods before three months and 20% before six months.[85]" seems to be superseded by the comments on effectiveness above it.

Not sure what you mean? If one has a period it is no longer the LAM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The lactation section reads quite clearly now. LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Emergency. Another confusing stat: " 70% effective (pregnancy rate 2.2%) " So... the earlier readings about effectiveness are not the number of couples at one year who are not pregnant as compared with a couple having unprotected sex?

With emergency contraception one is looking at a single sexual encounter and not a year as use. EC is not used for an entire year. Have adjusted the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, on reflection I think the confusing thing was that the pregnancy rate following a single sexual encounter is unstated, so I'm not quite sure what to make of the stated pregnancy rate. LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Added that bit in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "All methods have good safety and minimal side effects.[89]" suggest remove 'good safety', this is quite ambiguous

Minimal side effects is enough agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In the developing world (comma) birth control secondary to (due to) there being fewer dependent children and thus more women participating in the workforce.[8]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "for a C-section as of 2012" -> Caesarean section (or inter-wiki link)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting section.

• "Avoiding sex when fertile " could be reworded as "abstinence" in consideration of above sections

Abstinence is a more complicated word. Prefer to keep words simpler for translation purposes among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Effects required of governments include " -> "Governments are often required by ? to..." whether governments are forced to or voluntarily adopt measures is a little ambiguous here.

Adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "If governments fail to do this it may put them in breach of binding international treaty obligations.[119]" should some obligations be noted?

Adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• • "Between 25 and 75% of males would use hormonal contraception if it was available for them.[141][108] -> sexually active males (?)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Citation "^ Nelson, Anita L.; Cwiak, Carrie (2011). "Combined oral contraceptives (COCs)". In Hatcher, Robert A.; Trussell, James; Nelson, Anita L.; Cates, Willard Jr.; Kowal, Deborah; Policar, Michael S. (eds.). Contraceptive technology (20th revised ed.). New York: Ardent Media. pp. 249–341. ISBN 978-1-59708-004-0. ISSN 0091-9721. OCLC 781956734. pp. 257–258: " provides a full quote. I don't think this is normal for books quoted with page numbers?

Controversial but agree not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Citation ^ Kurver, MJ; van der Wijden, CL; Burgers, J (2012). "[Summary of the Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline 'Contraception'].". Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 156 (41): A5083. PMID 23062257." does not have language noted.

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not too sure if a lot of these criticisms are appropriate for a GA review (instead of an FA review) but I hope they're helpful. I feel this article has a lot of useful information. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will work through these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)