Long section on "effects"
This section (now removed) was essentially an effort to catalogue the history of medical opinion on whether IUDs cause very early abortions. In my opinion, a highly detailed inquiry into 40 years of medical opinions is not well-suited to this particular namespace. Intrauterine device (the article) provides a general overview of what the term means. In my opinion, it is not the place for a section giving a great degree of detail on one particular aspect of the IUD. I am not sure where this content should go (if anywhere), but I don't think it belongs here. I did try looking for various articles that would be an appropriate host, but did not find anything suitable. Please feel free to conduct your own search. AboutIUDs (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- This text was removed a year ago, and I feel that action should be taken. The text adds quite a lot of information that shows the differences of medical opinion concerning the reasons why IUDs work. It should not be omitted, and it's a relevant topic. But I agree it doesn't belong here. I would add it as a separate article and summarize it briefly here. I'm afraid to do the editing myself due to the probability that my work would be reverted. Is there an editor out there who is WP:BOLDer than I? David Spector (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Method of action
- Intrauterine device is a summary-style article; it would not make sense to describe any IUD's method of action, in detail, in this namespace. Copper IUDs and the hormonal IUD have different methods of action and are different in other ways; IUD with copper and IUD with progestogen address each device in more detail. But regardless, in the medical field, the method of action for both types of IUD is not well understood. AboutIUDs (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- See Long section on "effects" above for evidence that medical people have differing opinions on why IUDs work. Is it the physical scraping? A chemical effect from the copper? A hormonal response to the progestogen? Aliens? There are many FDA-approved medicines and devices whose methods of action are unknown. Medicine is primarily concerned with (1) is it safe? and (2) does it work as compared to a placebo, when tested with good experimental design (double-blinded, with control group, avoiding conflicts of interest)? David Spector (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Improving This Article
I am working in the field of reproductive health and have been doing a lot of research lately on IUDs. I would like to improve the quality of this article (particularly the section on Mirena), by including the most recent research, literature, and reviews. Would anyone be opposed to me editing this page in the coming weeks? All of my edits will be reviewed by qualified physicians. Side note: the reference in the title paragraph of this article, which states that IUDs are more effective that the progestin only pill, is misleading. If you look at the source that is cited as well as the research it mentions, it actually states that IUDS (along with other long-acting reversible contraceptives) are more effective than oral contraceptive pills in general, as well as the birth control patch, and the vaginal ring.SarahRose12 34 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Box on copper/hormonal IUD comparisons
I feel that it would be appropriate to put a comparison box in here somewhere on ParaGard vs. Mirena/Skyla. A lot of people making contraceptive decisions are looking for that comparison, and the article split makes it harder to make that comparison.
Any opposition to me putting one together? My main concern is that it's a little US-centric.
|USA IUD comparison|
|≤10 years.||Copper toxic to sperm.||Heavier menses.|
|≤5 years.||Progestin thickens cervical mucus, blocks sperm.||Lighter or no menses.|
|≤3 years.||Progestin thickens cervical mucus, blocks sperm.||Lighter or no menses.|
I just put this together in my sandbox, let me know what you think.
- We couldn't separate it into "hormonal" and "non-hormonal", because there are many different non-hormonal options, varying from three to twelve years' duration, some of which don't involve copper at all.
- The reason that I'd like to include such a box is to mitigate the problem with IUD articles being split into with-progestogen and with-copper: when I am speaking with friends about IUDs, the most frequent question I get is, "so, wait, what's the difference between them? which one should I get?"
- I'm working on this page and other IUD pages to improve global scope (just added inert IUD and Gynefix info -- I hear Canada's getting Gynefix soon, btw!), but I don't think adding information relevant to the USA scope, if clearly labeled, detracts from the global scope.
- Thoughts? Triacylglyceride (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully not overbold.
I just added an inert section and rewrote the hormonal section. Please feel free to criticize the edits! The talk page seemed pretty dead, or I would have run it by here first. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Barriers to use section?
I think it could be helpful to include a "barriers to use" section. IUDs in the US continue to be under-utilized compared to other countries, and there are some interesting reasons why (relating to insurance coverage of post-abortion and postpartum insertion, cultural barriers, and misconceptions by patients and doctors) that could bear publishing. Thoughts? Triacylglyceride (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)