User:Zodon

Risks and contraindications

Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). The Stroke Journal said that OCs confer "risk of first ischemic stroke."^[1] The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism also concluded in 2005 that "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events."^[2]

Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level), and in smokers over age 35.

Recent scientific research has shown that there is evidence that these pills are carcinogenic,^[3] at the same time they decrease the risk of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer,^[4] and colorectal cancer.^[5] They confer a risk of first schemic stroke,^[1] and significantly increase the risk of cardio-vascular disease.^[2] These pills also lead to increased deep vein thrombosis.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different preparations; With second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50μg), the risk of thromboembolism is small with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 users per year among non-pregnant individuals not taking the pill, and 60 per 100,000 pregnancies.^[6] In individuals using preparations containing third-generation progestogens (desogestrel or gestodene), the incidence of thromboembolism is approximately 25 per 100,000 users per year.^[6] Also, the risk is greatest in subgroups with additional factors, such as smoking (which increases risk substantially) and long-continued use of the pill, especially in women over 35 years of age.^[6]

Monograph 91 of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated in 2005 that "there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogecity of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives."^[3][7] Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory.^[8] The large 1996 collaborative reanalysis of individual data on over 150,000 women in 54 studies of breast cancer found that: "The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed. Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use. The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives."^[9] This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening.^[10][11] While taking the pill, there are approximately 0.5 excess cancers per 10,000 women aged 16–19, and approximately 5 excess cancers per 10000 women aged 25–29.^[6]

Crooks and Baur said that the health risks of oral contraceptives are lower than those from pregnancy and birth,^[12] and "the health benefits of any method of contraception are far greater than any risks from the method".^[13] Some organizations have argued that comparing a contraceptive method to no method (pregnancy) is not relevant—instead, the comparison of safety should be among available methods of contraception.^[14]

Can add with collapsible groups to make sidebar collapsed (but needs some tweaking).

• Basic concept seems to work - just needs ironing out details

Problems:

• The sidebar templates use different arguments from the navbox set (and sidebar collapsible uses yet another set of arguments).
  • created set of templates with names mirroring navbox names (and parameters fixed to match navbox) for trial puposes.
• How to handle different formatting in each type
  • Line breaks - think adding a linebreak parameter would do it (define as <br /> to make it break)
  • Handeling collapsing of subsections - in the example the the shared document codes which items are collapsible - may be a bit ugly. Might be better to have a general collapsible parameter (i.e. groupNcollapsible, or collapsible = list of sections to make collapsible. Another exercise would be to handle making collapsible, but starting out uncollapsed).

Footer version:

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Hard knocks supported by Omega and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q2 term.

Risks and contraindications

Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). The Stroke Journal said that OCs confer "risk of first ischemic stroke."^[1] The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism also concluded in 2005 that "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events."^[2]

Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level), and in smokers over age 35.

Recent scientific research has shown that there is evidence that these pills are carcinogenic,^[3] at the same time they decrease the risk of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer,^[4] and colorectal cancer.^[5] They confer a risk of first schemic stroke,^[1] and significantly increase the risk of cardio-vascular disease.^[2] These pills also lead to increased deep vein thrombosis.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different preparations; With second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50μg), the risk of thromboembolism is small with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 users per year among non-pregnant individuals not taking the pill, and 60 per 100,000 pregnancies.^[6] In individuals using preparations containing third-generation progestogens (desogestrel or gestodene), the incidence of thromboembolism is approximately 25 per 100,000 users per year.^[6] Also, the risk is greatest in subgroups with additional factors, such as smoking (which increases risk substantially) and long-continued use of the pill, especially in women over 35 years of age.^[6]

Monograph 91 of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated in 2005 that "there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogecity of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives."^[3][7] Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory.^[15] The large 1996 collaborative reanalysis of individual data on over 150,000 women in 54 studies of breast cancer found that: "The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed. Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use. The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives."^[9] This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening.^[10][16] While taking the pill, there are approximately 0.5 excess cancers per 10,000 women aged 16–19, and approximately 5 excess cancers per 10000 women aged 25–29.^[6]

Crooks and Baur said that the health risks of oral contraceptives are lower than those from pregnancy and birth,^[17] and "the health benefits of any method of contraception are far greater than any risks from the method".^[18] Some organizations have argued that comparing a contraceptive method to no method (pregnancy) is not relevant—instead, the comparison of safety should be among available methods of contraception.^[19]

Other testing:

Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah

Testing the reformatable navbox - boxstyle - navbox or navbox sidebar. Formatting parameters - figure out what they should be to allow setting breaks, setting styles in sub-boxes (e.g. change sub-group/list styles, depending on the boxstyle using).

Pap Template

Template:Human papillomavirus

Focal epithelial hyperplasia

Cytotechnology

Dysplasia

Other Pap

HPV Vaccine - merge in material from Gardasil article (when don't want to do a lot of thinkin).

Prevalence - STD article should cover other STIs in prevalence (HIV, HPV, etc.)

Worldwide prevalence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168781

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17597569?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed "On the basis of these estimates, around 291 million women worldwide are carriers of HPV DNA, of whom 32% are infected with HPV16 or HPV18, or both."

• That only gives HPV positive status, a lot more have been infected.

HPV testing of questionable value for primary screening for cervical cancer.

• Observers vary widely in assessment of the utility of HPV testing as a method of detecting cervical cancer.
  • Very large number of false positive tests in sexually active young women.
• Of doubtful value in replacing the Pap smear.

Koss, Leopold (2006). Koss' Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases (5th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 297. ISBN 0781719283, 9780781719285. OCLC 57731380. observers [...] vary widely in assessment of the utility of the [HPV] test as a method of cancer detection. The most important argument against this application of HPV testing is the very large number of false positive tests in sexually active young women (Clavel et al, 1999; Bishop et al. 2000; Davey and Armenri, 2000; Koss, 2000; Cuzick, 2000). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Human papillomavirus Cervical ca section should mostly go in cervical ca.
  • HPV vaccine
    • Gardasil - merge much of it to HPV vaccine

Canada is cost effectiveness. (Should go under future impact, as should the part of safety and effectiveness about commentary by researcher.)

Look at HPV vaccine sections also (consider how to combine this stuff).

• • • Cervarix
  • Pap test
  • Cervical cancer

• Dysplasia
  • Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Screening

• Medical test
  • Diagnostic test evidently much of it came from medical test (and much of it is applicable to medical test, might be better to roll it back into medical test).
    • Diagnostic testing Should be merged to diagnostic test and genetic testing
  • Screening (medicine)

ICTVdB etc

/sandbox

• ICTVdB Virus Code: 00.050.1.01

No arguments - display link to the database.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/ICTVdB/ Another URL

Examples of how ICTVdB entries used - so can see what would make useful template.

{{ICTVdB}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046| family=Orthomyxoviridae}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus.}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus. | format=cite}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus. |inline}}

• Code = 00.046
• Name =
• Form = cite | inline | plain | short | bare | url

• Version = 4
• --> (2006)

• Family = Orthomyxoviridae May not need this if can get away with using same format as for regular on family.

00.046.0.03.002. Dhori virus.

ICTVdBcite|00.034.0.01.001|Raspberry bushy dwarf virus

Official citation: (links added)

ICTVdB Management (2006). _00.046.0.03.002. Dhori virus._ In: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database, version 4. Büchen-Osmond, C. (Ed), Columbia University, New York, USA

For families, cite as: (May not need to treat them differently - seem to see some places listed as below, but others listed same as above)

Index of Viruses - Orthomyxoviridae (2006). In: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database, version 4. Büchen-Osmond, C (Ed), Columbia University, New York, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/fs_index.htm

External link

ICTVdBlink|

Way to generate something on the lines of: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: Raspberry bushy dwarf virus http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/ICTVdB/00.034.0.01.001.htm

ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: Tobacco streak virus

ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: virus name URL

To do - if leave second parameter empty, just display the code with link.

ICTVdBcode|00.034.0.01.001

Should it have a field in cite web?

NCBI Taxonomy EL

Create NCBI Taxonomy EL template. NCBI Taxonomy ID: 12059. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=12059

{{Taxonomy ID|12080}}

NCBI TAXID

(Covers more than just viruses.)

Vaccines

Vaccine controversy - Financial - include financial interest of critics. (Malpractice industry.) Vaccines not highly profitable (influenza vaccine hard to manufacture - few makers, articles on subject from few years ago.) (Compare to viagra, supplements.)

Askarisk for asthma - insufficient antigens theory. More vaccines now, but less antigenic material than in earlier vaccines.

Separate religion and alternative medicine from arguments against - they are not arguments against per se.

Give more ballanced view (not all religions oppose), not all alternative medicine opposes. (Highly compatible with some alternative med theories.)

Vaccine interference - short article, (1 paragraph) seems like could be rolled into major article like vaccination.

Vaccine critic - Basically a list of people, should probably merge into list of vaccine topics.

Navigation mess

Whole bunch of articles on energy monitoring, etc. Big tangle that should be organized (maybe some articles combined).

Building automation Home automation ‎

• Energy monitoring and targeting - process

• Energy management software
  • Energy accounting software

• Nonintrusive load monitoring

Electricity meter

Home energy monitor Wattmeter Smart meter Kill A Watt Cent-a-meter

Google PowerMeter

Energy management - disambig page, see linked to IT energy management Power management PC power management

Energy audit

Efficient energy use

IT - bunch of pages that relate (DCIE, PUE, etc.)

Low energy building

   * Low-energy house

Ambox styles

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup

Style usage is unclear in ambox

Why are these style templates rather than content? Template:Whereisit Template:Time-context Template talk:Context Template:Generalize Template:Gen-section

Why is orphan a style template? (e.g. rather than notice)

Wikipedia:Article_message_boxes

• Template_talk:Expand-section#More_subtle_style - work on more subtle style for message template

Orphan search - stubs?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration