Wikipedia

Talk:Sexually transmitted infection/Archive 5

< Talk:Sexually transmitted infection
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Copyright

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Still follow up on this

"STD incidence rates remain high in most of the world, despite diagnostic and therapeutic advances that can rapidly render patients with many STDs noninfectious and cure most. In many cultures, changing sexual morals and oral contraceptive use have eliminated traditional sexual restraints, especially for women, and both physicians and patients have difficulty dealing openly and candidly with sexual issues. Additionally, development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria (e.g., penicillin-resistant gonococci) makes some STDs harder to cure. The effect of travel is most dramatically illustrated by the rapid spread of the AIDS virus (HIV-1) from Africa to Europe and the Americas in the late 1970s.[1]

Commonly reported prevalences of STIs among sexually active adolescent girls both with and without lower genital tract symptoms include chlamydia (10–25%), gonorrhea (3–18%), syphilis (0–3%), Trichomonas vaginalis (8–16%), and herpes simplex virus (2–12%).[citation needed] Among adolescent boys with no symptoms of urethritis, isolation rates include chlamydia (9–11%) and gonorrhea (2–3%).[citation needed] "

May be from [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup a copyright problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was added in this edit in 2006. The editor who added it also included a link to that source, so it isn't a case of reverse copyvio. Hut 8.5 21:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mary-Ann Shafer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki (2006). "Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2006": 1–8. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sexually transmitted infection. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexually transmitted infection. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Classification section definition of STI

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The classification section currently says:

Moreover, the term sexually transmissible disease is sometimes used since it is less restrictive in consideration of other factors or means of transmission. For instance, meningitis is transmissible by means of sexual contact but is not labeled an STI because sexual contact is not the primary vector for the pathogens that cause meningitis. This discrepancy is addressed by the probability of infection by means other than sexual contact. In general, an STI is an infection that has a negligible probability of transmission by means other than sexual contact, but has a realistic means of transmission by sexual contact (more sophisticated means—blood transfusion, sharing of hypodermic needles—are not taken into account). Thus, one may presume that, if a person is infected with an STI, e.g., chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, HPV it was transmitted to him/her by means of sexual contact.

As may be clear there are no refs. But is this true, particularly the part about "In general, an STI is an infection that has a negligible probability of transmission by means other than sexual contact"? (Accepting that it's exclude blood transfusions, needle sharing etc.) I'm not really good at finding WP:MEDRS although I wonder how easy it is to find one which defines sexually transmitted disease or sexually transmitted infection anyway. But looking at general purpose reliable sources the WHO [2] says

More than 30 different bacteria, viruses and parasites are known to be transmitted through sexual contact. .... STIs are spread predominantly by sexual contact, including vaginal, anal and oral sex. Some STIs can also be spread through non-sexual means such as via blood or blood products. Many STIs—including chlamydia, gonorrhoea, primarily hepatitis B, HIV, and syphilis—can also be transmitted from mother to child during pregnancy and childbirth.

The CDC's 2015 STD treatment guidelines [3] say

The term sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) refers to a variety of clinical syndromes and infections caused by pathogens that can be acquired and transmitted through sexual activity.

This also from the US government [4] says

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are also called sexually transmitted diseases, or STDs. STIs are usually spread by having vaginal, oral, or anal sex.

and

An STI is an infection passed from one person to another person through sexual contact.

This from the UK NHS [5]

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are passed from one person to another through unprotected sex or genital contact.

This from the NT government in Australia [6]

A Sexually Transmissible Infection (STI) is an infection that can be passed on through vaginal, anal or oral sex. Most STIs are transmitted through the exchange of sexual fluids, but some can be passed on through skin to skin genital contact.

Some of these support the idea an STI is primarily transmitted via sexual contact, but none seem to support the idea risk of spread through non sexual contact is negligible.

I bring this up because scabies is given as an example of an STI both in this article and the STI template and in several of the above sources. Yet according to scabies, sexual transmission is not even the predominant form of transmission.

The CDC [7] claims that "Scabies in adults frequently is sexually acquired, although scabies in children usually is not (856,857)." But frequently is fairly imprecise, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the most common form of transmission. Neither of the sources seem to help, actually they don't even really seem to support the claim that I noticed. One simply recommends treatment of all close contacts including sexual contacts. The other something similar and "Scabies is considered to be a sexually transmitted disease, therefore, patients should undergo routine examination for sexually transmitted infection."

I did find another non reliable source that claims it's the most common form of transmission among sexually active young adults [8] but it provides no citations and I couldn't find any RS that mentions this.

I wonder if there's some confusion over different definitions depending on the circumstances. For example it seems to me (OR I know, but I'm trying to explain why I think the classification section is problematic) that scabies, is spread commonly enough during sex that it's often useful to treat it as an STI during clinical management and for the patient (as the Skin Therapy Letter ref suggests). This may include partner notification, sexual health advice and a wider STI heck. Some patients may have an idea of how they acquired it anyway and the area of infection may also give some clue as to how it may have been acquired although I'd imagine it's not very precise. But notably on these points, unlike with some other STIs, finding it on a child will probably generally not require investigation into the possibility of sexual abuse. And an epidemiologist would likely need to great care modelling its spread if they treat it primarily as an STI.

But for something like meningitis, I'd imagine that currently at least [9], in normal circumstances treating it as an STI is not useful. On the other hand, if there is sufficient reason to believe it was sexually transmitted, it may still be considered an STI for that specific person.

BTW as for sexually transmissible infection or disease, while counting Google Scholar results may not be the best method, it looks to me like there are well into 10s of thousands of results dealing with transmitted infection/s or disease/s but well under 10k for transmissible infection/s or disease/s since 2008, suggesting it's not a term that has taken off that well.

P.S. While I support the naming of this article, it is interesting that Google Scholar from 2008 onwards still seems to be about parity between sexually transmitted disease/s and infection/s. Disease is 22,100, diseases 39,700; infection is 19,800 and infections is 44,000. My OR phrase search didn't seem to work, so I don't know how many are duplicates between the 2, and I'm guessing at this level of results, the counts aren't always that meaningful as with general Google results. Looking at some of these results suggest that not all of them are referring to something likely to be consider a "disease" when they refer to STD, instead it's simply a synonym for STI.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


I was wondering why teens and colleges were the primary focus of B vaccines. Most internet info leaves out this little detail. Must be increasing "action" in school - no wonder they rescored the SAT - no time to study. 2601:181:8301:4510:7C66:D4FD:9503:39DD (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly wrong percentage listed for "Syphilis" for "Anal sex—insertive" in the "Risk per unprotected sexual act with an infected person" table

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anal sex—insertive says 14% and Anal sex—receptive says 1.4% both citing the same source which I found a bit odd. I haven't read the whole source, and the citation doesn't specify where in the source the number was found, but if I found the right place in the source from searching a bit then they're both supposed to say 1.4%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.189.37 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Chlamidia section there is an explanation of ectopic pregnancy "child being born outside uterus". This is incorrect! There is no child born from an ectopic pregnancy. Yes, the condition is life threatening (if the fallopian tube is the site of the pregnancy, it may rupture and a fatal internal haemorrhage may happen. Full pregnancy is not sustainable if ectopic. Ancamg (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done Cannolis (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I was hoping you could add an online testing option into the article: https://www.stdtestexpress.com/. It's an affordable, online testing option that accepts insurance. LaurenAF (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@LaurenAF: Also, please see #5 at WP:PROMO. We try to avoid using Wikipedia as a service directory. CityOfSilver 22:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexually transmitted infection. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hidden note

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Doc James, regarding this, why do you think that the hidden note is not best? I added it because a previous editor had removed "especially" and added "including" instead. But it is an "especially" matter since sexual activity can be a broad term and since other sex acts -- non-penetrative sex acts (depending on how "non-penetrative sex" is defined) -- do not spreads STIs as much as those three do. This is why the second source states "usually" (although it probably also states "usually" because of cases where a person got an STI in a non-sexual way). For that first line, I thought about moving and/or replacing the first source, but I felt that you would want to keep the WHO source there since it's the WHO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn I am happy to help keep "especially" as the wording in question. Lets see if it results in a ongoing problem before adding the hidden note.
The article is semi protected so I do not imagine a long term problem. Hidden notes can make translation more complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with retaining the hidden note, but nothing to fuss over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Francesca.alcala.96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision as a means of prevention

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article states that circumcision reduces HIV prevent rates, but the data is actually quite poor. There were only three studies done, they were all done in Africa (though different parts), and there were numerous methodological errors including "attrition bias (the number of participants who dropped out vastly outnumbered those who became infected), duration bias (the trials were not long enough to determine if the positive effect would plateau) and expectation bias." The worst problem is probably lead-time bias. "The circumcised men were told not to have unprotected sex for 4–8 weeks, yet they were monitored immediately, as were the men in the uncircumcised group. The men in the control group were therefore exposed to infection for a longer period of time." This information hasn't been studied rigorously enough to include. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.L.Kramer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WHO says "Male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60% and provides some protection against other STIs, such as herpes and HPV."[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The link you posted (to the WHO page) is extremely general and doesn't cite specific studies or discuss methodology regarding circumcision. (John.L.Kramer) I'll withdraw my suggestion that you remove the information. But the WHO page isn't sufficient. This meta-analysis is more appropriate[12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.L.Kramer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

sexually transmitted infection vs sexually transmitted disease

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is the article called sexually transmitted infection rather than sexually transmitted disease? I wanna know, 'cause most people use the term sexually transmitted disease, a term with which more people are familiar. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disease means the person is symptomatic. Infection is a broader term is this article is also about those who are infected but have no symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
September 1988 (Angela Maureen), see the move discussions listed at the top of the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Also see this latest one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexually_transmitted_infection/Archive_5&oldid=1187587584"