Talk:Essure

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Need to Clarify Risks section

Need to clarify whether these refer to getting it inserted or are on-going risks. So, for example, when "Vasovagal response" is listed as a risk, is that a risk only during the procedure being done, and if you don't get it while it's being done, or whether there is additionally, a risk of getting such an effect not just during/right after the procedure but days or months or years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Started separating the immediate vs. long-term risks. Added frequency of complications for those I found a reference for. Need to update more, as it's still just a long list of risks without a lot of context. May be beneficial to have a cutoff below which rarer complications should just not be listed. Lukascolashop (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Noticed a TV ad for the first time tonite. Is that new? I think they mentioned 5 years experience; did they recently finish a long-term study that provides a new marketing-strategy option? If verifiable, such changes of status seem to me appropriate for inclusion.
--Jerzy•t 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page sabotaged?

I don't know enough about this but it looks like the page has been edited to include strange remarks about carcinogens and what appear to be uncited statements about the product's safety (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.224.66 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Sterilization of Military Officers under "Risk" Section

Not sure this is exactly true. From the "Risk" section:

"The U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Contracting Center North Atlantic, located at MCAA NA Bldg T20, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307-5000 has announced its plan to procure 'ESSURE' Permanent Birth Control devices, using Taxpayer money, to permanently sterilize Female Military Service-persons and their Spouses. It is announced under Solicitation Number: W91YTZ-15-T-0044 (https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/MEDCOM/DADA15/W91YTZ-15-T-0044/listing.html)."

This section and/or citation either need clarification or to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear77 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risks

This long indiscriminate list of adverse events under "Risks" would seem to violate WP:MEDMOS: "a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious."

I think most doctors agree that Essure has risks, such as those reported in the NEJM and BMJ articles -- of death, intractable pain, and unintended pregnancy. But I think we should limit the adverse effects to those reported in WP:MEDMOS sources. I realize that some doctors follow Facebook to find out adverse effects that aren't reported elsewhere, but Facebook isn't even a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the uncited mention of stillborn babies being born with coils in their ears, but that whole paragraph about the facebook group is a mix of copy-paste from the BBC article and non-grammatical sentences... Archdiamond (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essure. 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/20110612171119/http://www.essure.com/Home/Understanding/EssureConfirmationTest/tabid/187/Default.aspx to http://www.essure.com/Home/Understanding/EssureConfirmationTest/tabid/187/Default.aspx

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) 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]