Talk:Atrophic vaginitis

Boxed warning

I don't think the warning really belongs in this article. It would belong in the articles about estrogen medications, of course, but it's too much for here. It should probably say something like "Estrogen treatments have the possibility of increasing the risks of certain conditions. As with all medical treatments, the advantages and risks must be weighed for each patient." with, of course, a wikilink to whatever article exists on the subject of estrogen treatments. 138.89.122.55 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the section was removed in the following edit: [1]. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561742/
• 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.06.029
• 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000526
• 10.1007/s00192-014-2554-z
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001500.pub3/abstract
• https://guideline.gov/summaries/summary/47751
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/cldare/articles/DARE-12014069736/frame.html

Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Art?

Unless collage has a medical meaning that I'm unaware of, I suspect that "deposition of collage" is wrong. For all I know it could be deposition of "collagen". Or something. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

remove redirect from Genitourinary syndrome of menopause

clearly this is a larger term. I plan to remove the redirect. EncycloABC (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The terms mean the same condition per [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

per page : it itself says: Terminology

Vulvovaginal atrophy, and atrophic vaginitis have been the preferred terms for this condition and cluster of symptoms until recently. These terms are now regarded as inaccurate in describing changes to the entire genitourinary system occurring after menopause. The term atrophic vaginitis suggests that the vagina is inflamed or infected. Though this may be true, inflammation and infection are not the major components of postmenopausal changes to the vagina. The former terms do not describe the negative effects on the lower urinary tract which can be the most troubling symptoms of menopause for women.[3] Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) was determined to be more accurate than vulvovaginal atrophy by two professional societies.[1][6][10] The term atrophic vaginitis does not reflect the related changes of the labia, clitoris, vestibule, urethra and bladder.[6]EncycloABC (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

so are we in agreement? I will change the redirect and create a new page for GSM EncycloABC (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

EncycloABC, if the term atrophic vaginitis has generally been replaced in use by GSM, should we just rename this page? Doc James? —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I think renaming is the best approach. Or some solution where GSM becomes it's own entity. (and AV becomes a thing subsumed under it)EncycloABC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is meant by "former terms"? What terms are being referred to? Vttran (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atentoglou, Vttran, Dytsang, Mdatsop (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Escholes, EliseSung, Lsu02, Seksiao.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed editing plan:

1. The first section should clarify the terms atrophic vaginitis and Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause. There is more explanation in the terminology section but it would be helpful to introduce both terms in the beginning as well.

2. Provide more details in the diagnosis section.

3. Include more treatment types/routes in the treatment section.

4. Include more statistics in the epidemiology section and any newer publications in the research section.

5. Edit information in the gray summary box. All the evidence comes from one source and the language could be improved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdatsop (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 

Peer Reviews from Group 26

1) The group’s edits do substantially improve the article. I thought that the article was well written and that it provided a lot of detailed information about atrophic vaginitis. I liked how the article provided information about the causes, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, epidemiology, and research studies regarding atrophic vaginitis. ~ Emma Scholes 7/29

I think this group did a great job at expanding and building on what was little to begin with. They made substantial visual changes whilst adding additional study results to back up their sections on diagnosis, epidemiology, and clarifications. Lsu02 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Longan Su 7/29

The group had done a good job in expanding the article and making it more complete compared to how the article had first started. I think the edits provided gave the reader a better understanding of this disease and provided a good explanation of the mechanism of the disease as /well as how treatment and diagnosis would be done. -Serena Siao 7/30

2) In my opinion, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. One of their goals was to introduce and clarify the terms “atrophic vaginitis” and “Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause” in the beginning of the article. I thought that the group did a great job of describing atrophic vaginitis in the first sentence of the article. They also did a good job of explaining what constitutes Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause. Another one of their goals was to provide more details in the diagnosis section of the article. I thought that the group’s diagnosis section contained a lot of detailed information and that they did a great job explaining the process of diagnosing atrophic vaginitis. Their third goal was to include more treatment types and routes in the treatment section. I thought that the group did a good job with this by mentioning several treatment options such as using a lubricant, low dose estrogen therapy, selective estrogen receptor modulators, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone, laser therapy as well as several other options. Their fourth goal was to include more statistics in the epidemiology section and add newer publications in the research section. In the epidemiology section, the group added several statistics including what percent of people develop atrophic vaginitis and what percent develop symptoms. I found these statistics really helpful to get a better idea of how prevalent atrophic vaginitis is. In the research section, the group included a trial from 2018 which provided information on the effectiveness of different treatment options. Their last goal was to edit the information in the gray summary box. I thought the information in the gray box provided a good summary of the information in the article. ~ Emma Scholes 7/29

The group's first goal for improvement included a clarification section on the terms atrophic vaginitis and Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause. This has been achieved as there are now more explanation and addition to the terminology section, and these terms are now introduced earlier than later. Their second goal was to provide more details in the diagnosis section, which they have also substantially expanded. Primarily, they looked to add onto the clinical examinations and clarify that some of the signs and symptoms could be attributed to other unknown causes, which in turn makes it rather difficult to accurately diagnose. The additional, however, of papillary and reticular dermal histological examinations are a great addition to clarify the diagnosis of post-menopausal women during these exams. The third goal was to include more treatment types, and they have done this by adding to treating GSM, urinary and genital symptoms, estrogen-related signs, and finally cancer related issues. The last goal was to include more more statistics in the epidemiology section, which they have also done by adding the rate of occurances of the development of atrophic vaginitis in post-menopausal women. Lsu02 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Longan Su 7/29

The improvements the group made were to expand on the studies done on this disease, clarify some terminology, as well as add additional details into the diagnosis section. They did a good job of explaining what atrophic vaginitis is and how this can be more susceptible to those who have a history of breast cancer. I think the mini section added that describes some of the terminology really helps breakdown the medical jargon a bit which makes the information more easily digestable. The research done about aloe vera seems very promising and I can see that being a point of interest that some readers may look into as there may be some who want a more natural treatment. In the diagnosis section it was very clear on the signs and symptoms to look out for, but the group had clarified that these are very common symptoms for multiple different causes. This causes making a diagnosis difficult but despite this, they provided information on how a visual exam would be more benefitial in diagnosisng this disease rather than labs. - Serena Siao 7/30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seksiao (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

3a) I thought that the draft submission did reflect a neutral point of view. The article did not include any words or phrases that were not neutral. The phrasing was very direct and scientific and did not reflect the group's individual opinions on the topic. ~ Emma Scholes 7/29 Escholes (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

3b) The claims that the group made are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are available. Many of the citations can be accessed without a paywall and anybody on the internet could navigate through the references and read more about each study if they'd like to. Lsu02 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Longan Su 7/29

3c) I think the edits the group did for the most part complied with the wikipedia manual of style, but I think there can be improvements. There are some instances where there is a lot of medical jargon and I think for the average reader a brief explanation would be better for comprehension. -Serena Siao 7/30