Talk:Uterine fibroid

Untitled

This page on Uterine Fibroids contains inaccuracies and myth. Rapid growth hasn't been considered an indication that a uterine tumor is cancerous for quite some time...medical content posted here is outdated and unreliable. 65.117.209.239 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is total crap. People who come here for medical advice are insane.--Hollerbackgril 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil, and remember, "I don't like it" isn't really much of an excuse. bibliomaniac15 01:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How's this for "an excuse"... "Uterine Fibroids may be removed by NSAIDs, a hysterectomy, hormonal therapy, a myomectomy, or uterine artery embolization." Um, NO. How do NSAIDs, hormonal therapy, or uterine artery embolization REMOVE uterine fibroids? They don't. If the first paragraph in this article is this poorly writted/edited, what does that say about the rest of the information presented herein? Ugh. People who use wikipedia entries for medical advice/information are truly misguided on the background/accuracy of the information presented. No doubt Wiki has a medical disclaimer somewhere on its site addressing the potential liabilities of this...This site is simply unreliable in it's content and clearly unaccountable for any of it. Reliable resources do exist online. This isn't one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.209.239 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 January 2007

If there is a problem with the content of this page, I'm putting up a tag. Disinclination 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If some of you people know more then please update this info and stop only complaning about it! I'm very interested in the iinfo about uterine fibroids and would appreciate, as manny others, some correct info on this subject. So please stop complaning and change some of it's content. Thanks. JaskoNL 09:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to see this article improved so have tagged it for an expert. If there is a better source for an expert, please adjust the tag accordingly. If and when an expert appears, could s/he add something about what happens to uterine fibroids during and after the menopause. Thanks. Itsmejudith 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just made changes to the surgery section to add more detail about myomectomies. If that passes muster I plan to continue working on fleshing out and improving the page. However, I'm not a medical expert, so the tag should stay. I should also admit that I'm not familiar with abbreviations of medical journals and thus some of my references need to be cleaned up. Jeanne d'Albret (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fibroma is NOT a singular of fibroids. (first sentence) fibroma - fibromas (fibromata) foiboid - fibroids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.172.135 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing unverifiable information

Sorry if improper format. Can someone who maintains this page please clarify contradicting epidemiology with African American and Caucasion rates of incidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.44.100 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the statement that NSAIDS are used for removal. There are no references in this article, nor is it included as a use in the NSAIDS article. If there is reliable documentation, it can be replaced. — ERcheck (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NSAIDS was never an option. I've had a myomectomy to remove my large fibroid (at age 28). More are regrowing in me as we speak. Will try to rustle up some factual information on this (it was all given to me hard copy wise the first time and my then surgeon has now retired! grr). --AussieJess ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Uterine fibroids can grow rapidly, feeding on hormones during pregnany - eventually outstripping their blood supply and going into very, very painful degeneration. My wife experienced this with our first son - spent 4 days in high risk pregnancy unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.24.188 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibroma is NOT a singular of fibroids. (first sentence) fibroma - fibromas (fibromata) foiboid - fibroids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.172.135 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Although studies have been done in Europe and in the US regarding mifepristone for the shrinkage of fibroids, with most showing great success in the size and volume of shrinkage, care should be used. Mifeprestone inhibits progesterone and can cause severe depression, a symptom that has been uncovered in other case studies utilizing the drug. I have taken this drug for fibroid management and had to discontinue after one month. Although this may not be a typical reaction, if you are able to get your doctor to prescribe the medication and reformulate the dose, please be advised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marleyjacob (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

question about 'Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2005'

This section assumes that the world is American. This should be re-written to emphasise that this is how uterine fibroids are being addressed IN AMERICA, or discuss other comparable efforts elsewhere. I have moved this section down, given its limited relevance.142.76.1.62 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

created a seperate section for support groups and such. Also moved rests of the afro-american section there - hope someone can find the time to fix it properly.Richiez (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with MRgUS section

It is a bit too extensive and US centric, for example the method is now covered by standard insurance in Germany since a few years. Also, how did the strange bullets get into the text? Richiez (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

I am FATEMA JOHRA, age 24 from BANGLADESH. I feel some pain in my bally 1 year ago after 1 month of my marriage. I meet a doctor, she advice me for some check up (ultra sonogram). Then I make it from a diagnostic center. It found 2 FIBROIDS. Then my doctor told I try for conceive as early as possible, when delivery time comes closer she will surgery for delivery and remove those fibroids also. Then I try to conceive, after 2 month I became pregnant (report on 21.12.2001). After 2 month from 21.12.10 I make another ultra sonogram found a twin pregnancy and at least 3 FIBROIDS (size 7*5cm, 7.7cm & 3cm) at the posterior wall. After 2 month my doctor told me make another ultra sonogram. Because of her advice I make another ultra sonogram on 03.05.2011. Then I found babies are little bit smaller but FIBROIDS growths are decrise (size 6*5cm, 6cm & 2.5cm). Doctor told me she will surgery before 1 month of my expected date of delivery (14.08.20011). But suddenly on 17.05.2001 at midnight I feel too much pain in my bally. I think it is false pain because expected surgery date is after 2 month, but unfortunately after some time I became a mother of 2 babies in my house before I hospitalized. My babies are under weight so they are getting sick. Doctors try their best but my babies left us alone in this world.

After 1 day of the accident I make ultrasound and found the FIBROIDS are increase rapidly (size 7.6*8.1cm, 9.2*8.1cm & 3.2*2.3cm) and Uterus measuring 17.9*7.9cm. Doctor told me come to her chamber after 1 month then she will give me an injection for those FIBROIDS.

After the accident I am scared and meet another doctor for better treatment. Doctor instantly makes a USG ON 28.05.2011 and advice me MYOMECTOMY after 3 month. Then I meet another doctor. He advice me make some checkup (ULTRASONOGRAM & SOME URINERY AND BLOOD test). As he advice I make those checkup dated on 31.05.11 and found FIBROIDS are too much increased (size 86*75mm, 26*24mm & 85*74mm) and left OVARIAN mild enlargement with (?) functional cyst. Then he prescribe (dated on 04.06.11) me some medicine and told after 7 days make an ultra sonogram scan of pelvis. As he suggest I take those medicine and after 7 days I made an USS (dated on 14.06.11) & meet with doctor. Then I found FIBROIDS size are 91*69mm, 25*21mm & 79*78mm and left OVARIAN mild enlargement with (?) functional cyst & right OVARIAN moderate enlargement with (?) functional cyst also. Now Dr. prescribed me take 3 injection (name DECAPEPTYL depot 3.75 mg deep in im) every 28 days and come to doctors chamber after 3 month, if the inj. work and fibroids size decrease then it’s ok, otherwise I have make an operation in my uterus.

Now I am not taking those injections because I am scared and don’t know that those injections are good or create any side effect in my internal or external body.

My question is: 1) should i take those injection DECAPEPTYL depot 3.75 mg? 2) Is myomectomy save for future pregnancy? Please suggest me the appropriate treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatema johra (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Familial section

This section I think now justifies its own page. I will create one for it and move the material there shortly. DrMicro (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the best way to proceed, also look at leiomyoma - there seem to be several similar syndromes mentioned there and possibly there are overlaps. Here in uterine fibroids it deserves a mention in the diagnosis/sign and symptoms and coexisting disorder sections I think. Maybe even in the lead although I am not sure if it is not too rare to mention there? Richiez (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew wikipedia already had an article about it but was a bit hard to find.. - Multiple cutaneous and uterine leiomyomatosis syndrome. Never mind, no big deal to sort this out. Richiez (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC) -- Fixed. Richiez (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fibroids causing miscarriage

In the article it is stated that fibroids can be the cause for miscarriage. But there is no citation. I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.8.42 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this needs a reference. We will look for one. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

fibroids as leiomyomas in leading sentence

While I appreciate User:Doc James edits for clarity, I think it highly important that the first line indicate how a uterine fibroid is a leiomyoma. This is by definition. In common practice, these two terms are consistantly seen as two separate entities, yet one is a subcategory of the other. Its inclusion is necessary since it links the two topics together and establishes what exactly the topic is, rather than having to search the entire article for the connection. I've re-added this fact to the main line, and while I agree that the prior edit may not have been clear, that doesn't necessitate its removal. I do agree, though, that it should be included under pathophys, although the attachment now seems like an orphan sentence. --Cpt ricard (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It was in the infobox to the right as a synonyms "Uterine fibroids, uterine leiomyoma, myoma, fibromyoma, fibroleiomyoma"

I guess we can have it in the first sentence aswell.

Have removed the distinguish tag for "leiomyosarcoma". This is discussed in the third paragraph of the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears many want to highlight things before the first sentence of the article. Some to highlight other closely spelled words. Others want to highlight similar conditions. Still others want warnings to go first. IMO we should be highlighting what the article is about first not everything that is remotely related.

We already state "Cancerous versions of fibroids are very rare and are known as leiomyosarcomas." in the third paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Asked for further input here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Major synonyms belong in the text itself, not just in the infobox. Not everyone will read, or even see, the infobox, much less notice the list of synonyms in a gray background. Re-users (e.g., teachers choosing something for students to read or bloggers quoting a paragraph for basic information) also appreciate having everything already in the text, since our infobox templates don't exist at 99% of other websites or in word processing software.

I've also reverted the WP:Hatnote, for reasons explained at WT:MED. It may be nothing more than clutter to you, but it's important to other users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Am happy with "uterine leiomyoma" in the first sentence listed as a synonym.

The hatnote not is not a big deal and am fine with it staying if people support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Uterine fibroid → Fibroids – Much more commonly referred to, even in article. Google books puts fibroids at 3.8 million and uterine fibroids at 447,000; ngrams show marked favour for fibroids; all other fibroids referred to are called fibromas. Iztwoz (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: My only concern would be fibroma the article as it has fibroid=fibroma. Their hatnote would have to be updated and that whole article would need some fixes. Just to preemptively strike, I'd say a merge would be out of the question since even though it's the same name, they are different pathologies (smooth muscle vs connective).Cpt ricard (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cpt ricard would a sentence in lead saying that fibroids in other parts of the body are of muscle tissue and known as fibromas cover this...--Iztwoz (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that would just confuse this article to be honest. My comment and concern are that this change will leave dust in that other article - and the other one would need some small management. But I'm forthe support rather than oppose or no decision. Cpt ricard (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "fibroid" is not specific for "uterine fibroid" even though this is the most common type. The term is sometimes non specifically used to refer specifically to uterine fibroids but is also used for skin fibroids, etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this move 2601:541:4305:C70:3957:5F23:E9A1:831A (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:PLURAL. It's just a fact that "fibroid" is too naturally ambiguous to use as the article title for this topic, and we do not pluralize article topics unless the subject is virtually always addressed as a plural in real-world sources. If you can write "the surgeon remove a fibroid", we would not have the article at Fibroids even if that was not too ambiguous to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  I had thought that WP:Common name would apply here. I know that in the UK any person wishing to look up uterine fibroids would know them as just fibroids and look up fibroids. In the same vein a doctor would tell a patient that they had fibroids and never uterine fibroids. Have to accept that it's opposed. --Iztwoz (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Additional references

here Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uterine fibroid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830094025/http://www.womenshealth.gov/minority/africanamerican/uterine-fibroids.cfm to http://www.womenshealth.gov/minority/africanamerican/uterine-fibroids.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318073355/http://fibroids.nichd.nih.gov/index.html to http://fibroids.nichd.nih.gov/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Help to link with Russian language page

The Russian version of the page is https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8 (Миома матки) I was unable to establish the link between the two pages. Perhaps a more experienced editor could accomplish this.

DouglasHeld (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Review

doi:10.1210/endrev/bnab039 JFW | T@lk 12:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminology: woman" versus "biological female"

I've reverted "biological female" to "woman" and added a note to acknowledge that trans men and some non-binary people can also develop uterine fibroids. Reasons:

• The article is meant for a general audience, so less-technical terms are better. "Biological female" is more technical than "woman".
• Where a version of this article doesn't yet exist in a non-English-speaker's native language, they may try to read this one; it should be as understandable as reasonably possible to a second-or-more-language English speaker. "Woman" is the simpler term, less likely to get mangled up by an AI translation tool (e.g. Google Translate).
  • Corollary to the above: a child may be asked to read and translate the article and that child is more likely to understand "woman".
• "Biological female" feels dehumanising, like I could be reading about non-human animals. I note that the articles for testicular cancer and prostate cancer use "men", not "biological males". My edit makes the tone and style of this article better match the articles about men's health conditions, without ignoring trans and non-binary people.

Juroreight (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the note about non-binary persons; (a) it was not cited, and there is no anatomical basis or difference justifying such a note; (b) there is nothing like it on other sex-specific wiki pages on medical topics, such as for testicular cancer, ovarian cysts, etc.. 104.152.83.178 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In the last month, an anonIP has replaced "women" with "people" in the lede, claiming that "women" is "unscientific". Clearly, the anonIP doesn't recognise the need for simple, plain English.

That note was intended to accommodate the very small minority of readers who are trans or non-binary without making the article too complicated for a much greater proportion of readers who aren't first-language English speakers. Juroreight (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)