Template talk:Infobox birth control

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Infobox birth control

From development disccusion at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed

Below is a copy of the discussion that took place in the development of this template at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed: David Ruben ^Talk 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an infobox for all birth control methods. It was proposed on the Birth Control article talk page. Feel free to propose changes and edit until we reach a consensus. Then we can convert it to a template. -- MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mamageek. Please see my reply on Talk:Condom. Is there an infobox for methods of protection against STD's? Because I think there should be some discussion taking into account the dual use of the device. Best wishes, Kasreyn 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a line in the infobox relating to STD protection. I additionally added the term "Birth Control" before "Type" in order to make the infobox more general in nature. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mamageek for jumping in to get this started. I've converted it to a wikitable which will be easier to edit and added the additional fields I first proposed on Talk:Birth control. I've taken the basic style from Template:Drugbox, upon which I recently worked. The image will be optional (can't think there will be one suitable for coitus interruptus !), and with optional parameters of width (else defaults 250) and caption. My intention is to add a test for the 'period_LighterHeavier' value so that it either appears in one or other of the Advantage/Disadvantage sections (or not at all if undefined - eg for the natural methods). I will add conditional tests to final version, so that some entire sections are hidden if not defined (eg the Medical Notes section). I've put in dummy values for IUDs to illustrate how some of fields might be completed. David Ruben ^Talk 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the new layout. I made a minor change in wording for consistency. Three of these fields apply only to certain types of BC (clinic review, periods, weight gain). I also see a problem with putting Advantages and Disadvantages in an Infobox at all. Some methods have long lists of either or both (see Fertility Awareness, Depo Provera, for instance). How, then, would you decide which benefits/effects make the Infobox, and which are only in the article? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence those (clinic review, periods, weight gain) fields will be optional and the rows not displayed at all if not defined. As to Depo-provera - main risk emblasened across article is FDA warning re osteoporosis - but no such warning in UK (last time I remembered to look), issues of infection/bruising/bleeding at injection site wont warrant mentioning on template- I would accept "FDA warn re bone thinning", but main factors for hormonal methods risks & benefits will be DVT incr,breast cancer incr, endometrial cancer decr, strokes if history migraines, and a medical note that risks of combined pills for smokers is increased such that after age 35, smokers should be on progesterone only pill instead (35 is the cut off for smoker&COCP being more risky than "natural" outcome of smoker&pregnant). David Ruben ^Talk 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Think about how this will be used, effects on periods heaviness will be too complex to try and rigidly define. The only one that increases is IUDs and merely stating "heavier" is unfair as this should really be "may be heavier", similarly for COCP periods are generally lighter but also regular (one it its indications), whereas for POP they are lighter, infrequent and irregular, and for Depo-provera lighter and very infrequent (majority women by 2nd injection stop having altogether). So I shall split these into separate optional paramenters - if not defined then row not shown (so FA wont use or show either).David Ruben ^Talk 23:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the advantages/disadvantages section doesn't really belong. Too much of it applies only vary narrowly... to hormonal methods and IUDs, but not to the rest at all. And STD-protection yes/no doesn't belong universally in "advantages." I preferred MamaGeek's much shorter version. moink 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In the "Live" version, many of the parameters if not defined will not be shown at all, specifically because they do not apply to many of the natural methods. However, as a means of sumarising information, the fields are there so that data can be presented in a consistant manner. Fair point about STD - I'll make it jump between sections then. David Ruben ^Talk 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick question before I turn this live with coding - what to call it ? Options might include 'Infobox Birth control' (my preference and will auto-locate to better place in lists of infoboxes better that other options) ), 'Infobox Birth control methods', 'BirthContolBox', 'Birth control methodsbox' (but last two sound as if control boxes for birthing process). Remember Template:Birth control methods already active as the bottom navigation/summary box for these articles. David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work everyone. I like "Infobox Birth control", but maybe something shorter like 'BC box" could also work.--Andrew c 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the succintness of "BC box", but "Infobox Birth control" is the most descriptive and the name I would prefer. Lyrl 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Infobox birth control

Coding issues

Template transcribed from proposal to beta-test live version with conditional coding inserted (see final point e possible display bug).

• Description of the conditional Parsers functions may be found at Wikimedia:ParserFunctions
• The STD variable is tested repeated, for both 'Yes' and 'yes' in the advantages section. In the disadvantages section it is tested for 'No' and 'no', but additionally for the parameter being undefined in which case a '?' is shown.
• Optional parameters not shown if undefined, but view on template page suggests this is currently causing an additional row to be included for the section headers. Will need try out on some articles, but if confirmed, I'd appreciate anyone with coding experience try to help fix this... David Ruben ^Talk 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with coding seem sorted, so removed queries in the process control methods_infobox&oldid=59351768 as of this version David Ruben ^Talk 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the addition of a name parameter - used because Oral contraception currently mostly about 'Combined oral contrceptive pill' (article of that name redirects to Oral contraceptive formulation that covers both COCP & POPs) David Ruben ^Talk 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text alignment

Is there any way to left-align the actual info, instead of having it justified, as it is now? The justification leads to some strange splitting of text in practice (see the NFP page). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi MammaGook - just back from my holiday. One can change formating, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure of the problem that you are seeing on NFP - what browser are you using - on my Internet Explorer, all data is displayed left-aligned and without any additional spacing that would make it justified (i.e. as per a newspaper when all but last line of a paragraph made to reach right-margin). Is this page still displayed in your browser as justified as of today 29th June ? - if so I can easily adjust the coding... David Ruben ^Talk 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still seeing it in the Benefits section. I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0 MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really strange, as quite clearly left-aligned by default when I also view with Internet Explorer 6 under Windows ME. I wonder if this is how your "my preferences" are set up? Under Skin are you using the "MonoBook (default)", and under Misc is "Justify paragraphs" unticked ? If it is not due to any of these points please let me know and I can easily add the markup code to force left-alignment :-) David Ruben ^Talk 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Failure rates

I've added a "per year" to the template to reflect that failure rates are per year, not per use. That makes a difference... Conscious 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all birth control methods have their failure rates reported per year. LAM is for six months or until the woman's menstruation returns, whichever is shorter. EC is per-use.

Could this parameter be changed to be a default of "per year" but have an option for alternate text? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So done - changed so that section header shows (per failure_measure) . In majority of cases, failure_measure need not be specified and default is to show 'year'. Only time, that I can think of that needed, is for emergency contraception which is not routine but undertaken as one-off events - in which case set this parameter as being per use. David Ruben ^Talk 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Advantages/Disadvantages

The classification of any effect as an advantage or disadvantage is POV--they should be listed together as Effects, rather than separated according to an opinion of what is beneficial or harmful. Weight gain may be considered an advantage for some, while those who think STDs should be there to intimidate youths may consider disease protection a disadvantage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Advantages & Disadvantages allows for NPOV (if one can consider an increase or decrease in an outcome as a viewpoint) as both plus and minus points can be mentioned (NPOV is not about a bland averaged but reporting both sides fairly). The aim is one of distinguishing side-effects and concerns that women often express over a particular method (weight gain is far more frequently asked of me as a GP rather than precise differences in effectiveness between two methods of contraception). Likewise use of a particular method and not getting an STD is surely better than use of a method and getting an STD - however whether one should be using a particular method in the first place is not the subjective opinion that this template is designed for. What the social implications are of the differences in effects of various methods and how this affects ethical/religious views on availability or promotion of particular forms is not what this summarising template is about (for that discuss as prose within the article or in the more general Birth control umbrella article). Reduction in ovarian & endometrial cancers for those on combined hormonal pill would seem to far outweight risks of stroke, DVT, breast cancer, so POV would be to state that evidence based medicine suggests that all women who are not actively trying to conceive should be on the pill - hmmmm no one is seriously going to try to enact that public health policy, and nor does listing the increases or descreases imply such a POV - effects at reducing or increasing certain rates of cancer can though be distinguished in the current form of the template. Finally splitting information between parameters of the template helps provide a consistamt approach at this summarising, otherwise we may as well have just an uncoordinated single parameter of "Information" with free text in a variety of styles and level of coverage in each article. David Ruben ^Talk 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, listing increases or decreases isn't POV, but characterizing a specific change as "Good Thing" or "Bad Thing," which "Advantages/Disadvantages" does, is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to call them something - one has in drug literature "purpose" or "indications" as the positive things that a treatment aims to achieve and "side-effects", "warnings" and "contraindications" as things that limit the appropriateness of using the drug, but we don't accuse drug companies of bias purely on basis of the use of these standard headings (failing to include information within a section yes). Nor, as an example, would debate over say the wisdom of treating mild depression with an SSRI (which quite rightly belongs in the article) be appropriate in the dry descriptive encyclopaedic sections of Indications and Side-effects, but rather in a separate section of "Debate" or "Controversy". So would "Actions and therapeutic effects" & "Side effects" be any less POV in your POV ? The current template section terminology is certainly shorter and, to my personal pro-contraception view point, "disadvantages" sounds much stronger than just "side effects". David Ruben ^Talk 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The characterization of an effect as intended occurs from the perspective of someone who prescribes the drug, or the drug company which intends it to work. We don't accuse them of bias, but it's still a specific perspective on the situation rather than an objective category that exists independent of any personal opinion about what the drug should do. What's intended and what's a side effect changes even within the medical community, as with offlable prescriptions. I'd rather the template be divided along more objective categories, such as types or areas of effect (effect against STDs? Effect on periods?) rather than whether such effects are good or bad. Then each reader, who has his or her own perspective on whether such things should occur, can decide which is an advantage or disadvantage. We're not here to provide advice on which method to use, just information about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So we would have list of parameters of possible effects eg Cancers, Cardiovascular, Weight, STD prevention etc - I suppose one could so structure if consensus of other editors so wished. However I think this will seem more awkward and is being unnecessarily slavish to those who might see offense at the current template setup (we don't allow those who object to a particular drug to alter the standard decriptive system of "Indication", "Caution", "Warnings" & "Side effect" structure as set out in the WP:MEDMOS. It will I suspect reduce the usefulness of the template as a summarisation for those who are pro-contraception but trying to compare one method against another. Time I think to see what other editors have to contribute to this David Ruben ^Talk 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with the weight gain parameter is more that it always appears in disadvantages - the Lactational Amenorrhea Method article currently has "weight loss" listed as a disadvantage of the method. Funny. Anyway, on topic: I prefer having advantages and disadvantages listed in the infobox. I believe it greatly increases the utility of the infobox. Any POV introduced by particular use of the box should be able to be solved by discussion on the Talk page of the particular method. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

re Weight loss - the parameter previously only considered weight loss as 'Yes' occuring or 'No' not induced. I've now added in option of 'Loss' when it is shown as an advantage (heading is 'Weight loss' rather than 'Weight gain'). Likewise STD protection, quite a few articles had this as 'Possible' which I have now included in the template coding. Let me know if any foul-ups on any page you view (but I think I have checked them all). David Ruben ^Talk 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest having sections "Advantages", "Disadvantages", and "Other effects". Then editors of each birth control page can decide where to put each effect. I would tend to put weight gain or loss under "Other effects" since it could be good, bad or neutral for different people. --Coppertwig 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out on Talk:Intrauterine device, weight gain=no should probably also be listed as an advantage. ("Other effects" or a similar neutral section would also be fine with me.) --Galaxiaad 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weight loss is not always an advantage. There are some people who struggle to maintain a healthy weight or may be on medication where weight loss is a concern. Additionally, not everyone considers having a period an advantage, some women dislike having their period and intentionally seek treatments that reduce or eliminate it. Neitherday 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Others see having a period as sacred and view having none or less as a disadvantage. Neitherday 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've combined the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" into "Advantages and Disadvantages" while maintaining back compatibility with articles that used the older version. Neitherday 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Given previous extensive discussion and tweaking of the template balancing out various POVs (pro and con various methods) re advantages and disadvantages, that was a very bold move to announce, change the template and go editing the articles to match a changed template (might have been better to suggest the change and allow people to discuss implicatiouns first).

To start devising senarios of a malnourished underweight person benefiting from a drug that puts weight on is not in any sense what is typically meant by drug advantages/indications or side effects. What is implied is for the average person, and in most English speaking countries that tends to be someone who is already or is at risk of being overweight (women BMI>24.5). The previous coding using #switch parameter was tolerant of upper or lower case values (unlike the repleaced #if).

I think my straw poll nomination would be to revert this (ie this template change and te edits to implementation in teh birth control articles), but what do others think ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The scenario I was mentioning is far from uncommon. I was more trying to point out weight loss as a disadvantage than weight gain as an advantage. In fact, that a change in weight either way is good or bad is POV. The combined sections continue to list everything, but let the reader decide for themselves what's an advantage and what's a disadvantage. However, I'm fine with the straw poll and would be willing to quickly revert the other articles myself if consensus dictates so. I believe in cleaning up my own messes. Neitherday 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this implementation, I don't like how big the newly combined section is. The whole point of an infobox is to break information up into easily digested bits - doubling the size of the largest section, to me, makes the template less useful.

If going back to the advantages/disadvantages format is not supported (I'm sitting neutral on the issue right now), maybe the sections could be broken down some other way? Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are still the same number of overall items. I don't see breaking how breaking them into two subsections significantly aids digestion, especially as their is conflict on which subsection some items should go in. Neitherday 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

I would like to edit this infobox to change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate". This is the usage in some birth control literature e.g. [1] and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard. The phrase "pregnancy rate" is much more courteous towards those people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy. "Failure rate" can be perceived as very negative towards those people; "pregnancy rate" is neutral and its meaning is quite clear -- even slightly clearer than "failure rate", perhaps, which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy. I'm also planning to similarly edit the wording on the birth control and natural family planning pages and perhaps other pages. I'm leaving an opportunity for discussion before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: "which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy" - but the whole point of contraception is NOT to "achieve pregnancy". A pregnancy despite use of contraception is therefore not what is being sought and not a "success" as far as the method goes, indeed it is a negative reflection on the particular method. Terminology usage in the UK is still to describe failure rates. The view that "usage in some birth control literature ... and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard" is a personal opinion and thus excluded from article space by WP:NOR, unless you can site an authorative source explaining that the terminology is to change. The reference given is for a US webpage in 1997, which is hardly indicative of a changing use of terminology (just that this one paper in 1997 so phrased).

Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne, but we do use terms such as "planned pregnancy" or "unplanned pregnancy" when making antenatal referals or supporting people in making a decission on how they wish to proceed (continue with pregnancy or not to) - see current UK FPA's Information about unplanned pregnancy in Northern Ireland. David Ruben ^Talk 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, and from 2006, example of terminology usage comes from Family Health International, Using Pills Correctly which describes "Typical failure rates among pill users are as high as 12% to 20% in some surveys." So I am not convinced of a changing international use of terms. David Ruben ^Talk 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only people I've seen take offense to the term "failure rate" are natural family planning groups, whose views that it's frequently immoral to avoid pregnancy are certainly out of the mainstream. I have seen objections to the term "failure rate" when used for barrier methods of birth control, as condom research about breakage, slippage, etc. will refer to those events as "failures" regardless of pregnancy outcome. The duplicate meaning of failure with respect to these methods can lead to confusion, and "pregnancy rate" is more precise. Not an issue with any of the other types of methods, though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Lyrl, I was about to add that this point has also been opened at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". Given that larger number of editors are likely to view this issue there, I think further debate should NOT be duplicated/continued here :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. This discussion is to continue at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". Sorry, I should have directed discussion to a single place in the first place. --Coppertwig 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note that in the discussion on that page, I've mentioned two new test versions of this infobox, including one that allows the default text (usually a question mark) to display properly.) --Coppertwig 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note ongoing discussion and proposal to install newer version of infobox at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" --Coppertwig 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"first year" versus "per year"

• The failure rate in this template should by default state it is for the "first year" not "per year".

• It is inaccurate and misleading to report the Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception as "per year" because both typical use and perfect use contraceptive failure rates decline with continuing use. PMID 15288211

• For example, a large WHO randomized, multicenter trial reported a cumulative 12-year pregnancy rate of 2.2 per 100 women for the TCu380A IUD (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 12 years) that was equivalent to a cumulative 10-year pregnancy rate of 1.8 per 100 women for female sterilization (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 10 years). PMID 9494767

I suggest changing the template from:

| Failure rates (per year)

to:

| Failure rates (first year)

and the template instructions from:

| failure_measure = year

to:

| failure_measure = first year

FP101 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

src: rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org

Weight change entry

I'm not sure the weight change line in this template is useful anymore. It's "no change" for everything except breastfeeding, where the weight loss is more a side effect of how much the child eats and not the specific behaviors that prevent pregnancy (frequent smaller feedings, the woman being near the infant as close to 24/7 as possible, etc.). It used to be "yes" for the hormonal methods, but one editor has presented some lengthy documentation that modern low-dose formulations, at least, do not have any effect on weight (Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Side effects studies - you have to scroll down quite a bit to get to the section on weight, it starts on the third screen on my monitor). How do others feel about removing "weight change" from this template? Lyrl^Talk _C 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being removed. If you remove weight_gain_loss, you should also remove weight_gain_YesNo - which was left in order to maintain back compatibility with older uses of the template. Neitherday 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. The reference given in Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Side effects studies is PMID 1442247 which states "In one recent study, 20% to 25% of women stopped taking OCs because of weight gain or acne", yes a later section goes on to cast doubt in placebo contolled trial whether this is true or nor. But weight gain is felt to be an issue, (remember at this point that Wikipedia reflects current generally accepted knowledge, even if that is incorrect - WP:NPOV not WP:SPOV) and it would form (or at least should do) part of a doctor's counselling (explaining that whilst often claimed by women, there is poor evidence for it and, if it does occur, then just very slight weight gain). Indeed I frequently see women who refuse to even consider hormonal methods purely on basis of what they believe/have read/peer-group beliefs on this single issue. Likewise I frequently have patients who request a change of pill formulation for this reason. Now I agree I too believe the degree of weight gain is over estimated with women not willing to accept the weight increase is due to themselves and not the pill, but that is speculation and my original research :-)

I would not mind though changing the wording from "weight gain" to "little if any gain", but this an important aspect that the wider readership believes (albeit a misconception) about hormonal vs other methods that needs mentioning. This parameter should I feel continue to be included in this an "Infobox". David Ruben ^Talk 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I of course believe the section Combined oral contraceptive pill#Weight should remain in the article for the exact reasons stated by David. But this infobox on most of the hormonal contraception articles currently says Weight - No effect or Weight gain - No (the only exceptions are Depo-Provera, Norplant, and Implanon). I'm confused by David's argument because he seems to be saying the parameter should be kept so hormonal contraception articles can indicate weight gain as a side effect - but the current usage of the template says that weight gain is not a side effect.

Because of the debate surrounding this issue, I think it is better addressed in the text of the article rather than a simple yes/no statement in an infobox. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not weight is kept as a separate infobox item, I think it should be noted that Lactational amenorrhea method lists "Weight - loss". Neitherday 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyrl I agree, full discussion on weight for hormonal methods in the article text (as per pretty much all the parameters needing to be fleshed-out) :-) Would perhaps "unproven" be more precisely accurate ? As you correctly observe, there is a discrepency between research data and commonly held beliefs, but this in itself is, I think, notable. I also note Neitherday's point above. Perhaps just a moderate keep opinion then ? :-) David Ruben ^Talk 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like the "unproven" suggestion for the hormonal methods. For the other methods, though, I'm not sure that entry provides benefit, and it can generate confusion (see Talk:Condom#Weight gain). Maybe make it an optional parameter, so we can have it visible only on the hormonal contraception articles?

I'm not sure whether the weight parameter is helpful even at lactational amenorrhea method - as I said initially, the variable most related to breastfeeding-related weight loss is caloric intake of the infant, which is not related to the variables responsible for the contraceptive effects of breastfeeding (frequent feedings, regardless of how much intake the infant has, and avoiding mother-infant separation). I don't have any strong feelings the weight parameter use at LAM, I guess. Lyrl^Talk _C 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure will make optional... er, it already is :-) Just don't specify any value and it is not shown at all. David Ruben ^Talk 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about that! I knew some of the other parameters worked liked that, I just hadn't thought to try with this one. Oops. I guess I'll go ahead and remove it from the non-hormonal contraception articles, then. Thank you for talking this over with me. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'''STRONG KEEP OF THE FACT MIRENA CAN/DOES ELICIT WEIGHT GAIN IN A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN. With all due respect, of course the men who have volunteered a response here declaring "no proven effect" as being acceptable will never know what it's like to have an IUD inserted into their uterus and then experience it wreaking havoc on their bodies. I do, however, believe if their female significant other started experiencing unexplainable weight gain, they would be the first ones to tell them to "eat a salad" because they were getting too thick.

And herein lies the rub of this issue ... Unless you've been there and know firsthand, you can't possibly accept the realities. To wit: I was one of the users who accepted the manufacturer's claims that Mirena users do not experience weight gain and continued to believe it, sure it was something I was doing wrong to elicit a 10+ lb weight gain, although I was unable to lose it with considerable effort; meanwhile, I also experienced the overnight appearance of a 1"x3" breast mass and had to go thru all the standard breast cancer testing, biopsy and lumpectomy. Then I found out that Bayer/Berlax omits mention of these issues that are very much attributable to its product and are verifiable elsewhere on the internet, with links provided on the IUD Wikipedia page.

Links provided earlier show that in just one internet posting, nearly 400 women have experienced weight gain and other side effects from their Mirena. Had I found that information on Wikipedia prior to insertion of the Mirena, I probably wouldn't have gotten the product and saved myself (and my loved ones) a lot of worry and expense.

So NO, I'm not comfortable with a blanket term of "no proven effect" as clearly, the Mirena does elicit weight gain in a large percentage of women. (Otherwise, could you possibly explain the fact that six weeks after having the Mirena removed and no longer altering my food intake in any way as the hormones were eliminated from my system, I am at my pre-Mirena weight?)

It is imperative that everyone understands no one knows their body as well as most women know their bodies. Ten women saying they've gained weight could be an excuse; 400 women saying they've gained weight--some of them who have never, ever had a weight problem (or been overweight) pre-Mirena--is another issue entirely. And let us not forget, the reference in question is but one posting on one bulletin board on the internet.Melissa Mermaid 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Melissa Mermaid

A collection of cases does not in itself prove causation and hence the role for research studies to confirm or refute questions that might be raised by annecdotal experience (I don't dispute the individual cases that weight gain occured, but likewise I see a lot of women who are currently putting on weight who are on no contraception). Likewise I'm sure that a 1/3 of Mirena users eventually die from cancer and could find thousands of cases, but of course any study would show that about 1/3 of all non-mirena users also eventually die from cancers. 400 cases on a forum site does not make for WP:Reliable sources for any conclusion that wikipedia can use, indeed it would be covered under WP:No original research. Whether any women gain weight directly from mirena is debatable from the literature, but even if so, would be in the minority of cases. NPOV therefore applies here - the research majority viewpoint would be "No", but of course there is a non-trivial number of women who claim that they have had weight gain due to hormonal methods. Stating "yes" for the minority viewpoint breaches WP:UNDUE-weight guideline, so "No proven effect" seems, to me, neutral in that it expresses both the majority viewpoint whilst leaving the issue open for further review David Ruben ^Talk 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Period parameter duplication

Since Advantages & disadvantages sections were merged (see Template talk:Infobox Birth control#Advantages/Disadvantages above), the Period parameters therefore duplicate one another - see IUS where on one line states "Periods: Menstrual irregularity or amennorhea", only to be followed on the next by "Periods: Lighter or none at all (amenorrhea)". Currently there are 3 parameters, periods, periods_disadvantage and periods_advantage. Presumeably just one single parameter, periods, is required and the various articles then tidied up to use just the single parameter.

If consensus agrees on this, but no one but myself around who can edit the template, please note there is no deadline and it would need to wait 2 weeks for my return from holiday :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

periods_disadvantage and periods_advantage were intentionally left in the template code in order to maintain backward compatibility with older uses of the template. They were, however, removed from the documentation and anyone who copies the template form from the documentation won't be using them. Neitherday 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, so now the articles should be gone through to use the template as now intended (i.e. having single "period" parameter") and then the extraneous template coding can be removed (eg IUS clearly needs its duplicate entries merging). (whilst I still think the previous splitting of advantages/disadvantages was more functional/informative, there clearly had been no rush of other editors to suggest a consensus for this). I'll catch up on how this thread progresses on my return from holiday.David Ruben ^Talk 11:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ilure rates". --> {| id="Infobox Birth control" style="float: right; clear: right; mar

needs to be

ilure rates". -->{| id="Infobox Birth control" style="float: right; clear: right; mar

It's creating extra space at the moment.174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The '%' sign is added for you -- in the wrong place

"The '%' sign is added for you" for two parameters: perfect_failure% and typical_failure%. But, if there is a <ref> supplied, the '%' sign should precede the bracketed reference number, not follow it. See Contraceptive sponge for '%' signs that erroneously follow the bracketed reference number. --Anomalocaris (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, fixed it. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Frietjes, looks good, thanks! --Anomalocaris (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is risks in blue?

Here IUD_with_progestogen and how do we fix it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Brand name

We should add this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James is that different from |tradename= ? Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Frietjes thanks. Missed it. It is the same. All is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia