Talk:Pelvic inflammatory disease

Pelvic inflammatory disease has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Medicine: Translation / Reproductive Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pelvic inflammatory disease.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The math doesn't add up (and neither do the references)

"In the United States, more than 200 million women are affected by PID each year, and the rate is highest with teenagers. Over 100,000 women become infertile in the US each year from PID."

"A single episode of PID results in infertility in 13% of women."

Ok, firstly, the population of the United States is around 300 million. About half of that population is female, so there are about 150 million women in the United States. Saying that "more than 200 million women are affected by PID each year" is false because there are fewer than 200 million women in the United States. If that figure is right, it should at least be changed to say "there are more than 200 million cases of PID every year."

Also, if there are 200 million cases of PID every year, then 13% of that is 26 million. However, the article says "Over 100,000 women become infertile in the US each year from PID". Well, 26 million is 260 times as much as 100,000. So, there are two possible solutions here; for every woman who is rendered infertile from PID, there are 259 women who have already been rendered infertile by PID and got another infection, or the 200 million figure is way too high. Now, according to the 2nd reference:

"Each year in the United States, it is estimated that more than 1 million women experience an episode of acute PID."

It does say acute PID, however, the 1 million figure is referenced and seems more accurate than 200 million. As such, I'm changing the article to match with this reference. --221.131.73.156 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know where to begin, but the format of the page seems off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.251.66 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. These numbers are impossible, even before the advent of antibiotics. I would have calculated it differently, but the article or its source is clearly adding on some zeros. I move to delete these calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.251.66 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.70.80 (talk) [reply]

Did anyone research the numbers? I have pelvic inflammatory disease from chlamydia, and infertility from PID, so it's important enough for me to look up the numbers nationally (I know them in Michigan), I know they are large. Houda Awali (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of unexplained abbreviations.

Opening paragraph - "Although HI an STI is often the cause" No explanation of HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle111 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

There is still a lot of unreffed content here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many references inserted but contained in the 'no-wiki' mark-up?

Bfpage |leave a message 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the lead? While some do not like all the refs showing. So if:

"sentence [1], sentence [1]" the first instance of the ref can be hidden as the second instance of the ref supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you point out to me the statements is that need references I can help you look for them.

Bfpage |leave a message 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two instances of a ref that cannot be found either by given link or on ncbi.... the Ljubin-Sternak, ref --Iztwoz (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James sent me the link on my talk page. It's an amazing tertiary source.

Bfpage |leave a message 02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here's the sternak review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25614838

Wow, you edit at light speed

Doc James, can you put up the {{inuse}} template so I can stay out of your way when you're working? LOL!

Bfpage |leave a message 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass through 'peer reviewer'

I did one pass through peer reviewer and was informed that the lead might be too long so I will do my 'editing for brevity'.

Bfpage |leave a message 21:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the lead is not too long. Not all advice at peer review is good advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally your changes to the lead introduced some errors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelvic inflammatory disease/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 17:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pending
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pending
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Source

The statement: "Other complications include: endometritis, salpingitis, tubo-ovarian abscess, pelvic peritonitis, periappendicitis, and perihepatitis," is supported by the Sternak reference. @Doc James: I am questioning the removal of this reference after the statement. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 00:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- On that point, I have added the Sternak ref to the end for clarity. BTW, I'm putting this on hold.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few more:

Fix dashes using a script
Inconsistency: "%" and "percent"
numbers less than 10 are written as words per MOS:NUM--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the inconsistency regarding the percentage and I have edited so that numbers less than ten are spelled out. I regret that I don't have any idea on how to use a script to correct dashes. Is this something I should ask the Copy editors guild?

Bfpage |leave a message 00:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the help of another editor who I hope will help resolve the dash/script issue.

Bfpage |leave a message 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PID shuffle

Is it okay to mention the way individuals with this condition walk? MightyArms (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IssaEm, Whitea23, Moose002, Court2020 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amrae43, WiseWillowPtarmigan, Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui, JHannaUWEC, Nyrenhr8834, MadelineMartin7302, Beelerq, Phwikiproj.

— Assignment last updated by WiseWillowPtarmigan (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]