Talk:Striae gravidarum

This article was nominated for merging with Stretch marks on October 2011. The result of the discussion was Merge.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge Striae gravidarum into Stretch marks, checking links from Pregnancy to that page

Suggest that Striae_gravidarum be merged into this page: they're just a specific cause of stretch marks, as both this page and that already note, and the Striae_gravidarum page is and probably always will be a stub.Mikalra (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --NFSreloaded (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on treatment here, based on a discussion of selected primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources, is incorrect. I believe this page is redundant. There is a section on stretch marks now in the pregnancy article, and a section on pregnancy in the stretch marks article. I believe it should be merged into pregnancy, as the hormonal issues make it genuinely specific to pregnancy. Hildabast (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Merge. Since the last contribution to the discussion more that 2 years ago the Stetch marks article has improved, so Striae_gravidarum can be merged in. Also, add a link from Pregnancy to the stretch marks page should ensure that reader can find the relevant information.Klbrain (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

primary sources

The sections of #Prevention and #Treatment use clinical trials as sources. But WP:RSMED says that those are primary sources in the field of medicine.

In Pregnancy#Symptoms there is a crochane meta-review and an article about general pregnancy conditions. Those sources are more secondary. We should use those sources.

Both sources say that no treatment has been shown to be effective. Small clinical trials don't change that statement, they only show that there is some research going on that could result in a treatment in the future. --176.80.38.99 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked what they actually are - and this needs to be removed, or someone has to work on it. You've assumed, it seems to me, that the trials they're referring to are related to the same issue as addressed by the Cochrane review. That is not the case. The Cochrane review is about prevention and treatment during pregnancy. The treatment section here is about after pregnancy - and the first 1998 trial is not in pregnancy. That section isn't making it clear that this is not about treating them during pregnancy, and I made that mistake last night too when I just looked at it quickly. In fact, it's important to note that the first treatment it's talking about is categorized by the FDA as not for use in pregnancy because of risk of harm to fetuses. Hildabast (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have suffered from stretch marks, due to excercise first-hand. I can supply photographical proof, if needed. - KaOs (MrChaosBones@gmail.com)