Jump to content

Talk:Ethinylestradiol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hbary, Kandyskim, Ucla.cesar, Kristran. Peer reviewers: BookSmart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No space in title?

[edit]

Why is the title of the article all one word, but in the article itself the name is always broken apart into two words? Shouldn't it be consistent either way? Lyrl 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally written in 2 words: Ethinyl estradiol. Ekem 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently moved it because INN (not sure what that is) spells it as one word, and wikipedia apparently encourages INN spellings (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)). I do prefer two words, though. Lyrl 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer two words too, having it as one word is a very unconventional way of writing it. Even on medication itself, it's two words --Hbary (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have just removed several sections from the article for being blatant unedited copyright violations, taken straight from this page. I find it rather sad that such an important drug is so poorly documented here on wikipedia that someone could get away with copyvios. Hopefully we can start to give this article the love it deserves :) LinaMishima (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title versus name in lemma

[edit]

The title names the compound with an "i" following the "h". As the name of the substituent is derived from Ethyne (the systematic name of acetylene), then name of this lemma should be "Ethynylestradiol", as in the first line. Is this lemme to be renamed again? T.vanschaik (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would think, given the IUPAC rules. In this case however, the trade name is in fact "ethinyl estradiol". Must have been named by a pharmacologist :oD. - Puddin'head24.9.79.14 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethynilestradiol potency vs. 17-ß Estradiol

[edit]

I agree that very few informations are (freely) available all around about this very common and widely used hormon, and as a consequence also Wikipedia currently offers very little about it. In particular, one topic of interest would be explaining/understanding the relative potency of EE versus plain Estradiol in binding to E receptors and activating them. EE appears ways more potent (why ?), since oral formulations always include EE in microgram dosages, while E (micronized or valerate) is always dosed in milligrams. Any interested people would like to understand that by reading this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.120.199 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The greater potency of EE is generally considered to be a pharmacokinetic effect - it is not oxidized at the 17 position due to the addition of the ethyne group and thus is not cleared as rapidly. I have not seen any information on the Kd value of EE, nor a comparison of receptor binding to that of estradiol. Will take a look to see if I can find anything. - Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bioavailability reported as "97% bound"

[edit]

The article conflates bioavailability with protein binding in the boxes below the chemical structure. Should an entry for "protein binding" be added, or should the proper bioavailability data simply be inserted in place of what is currently there? - Puddin'head207.93.211.50 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Health?

[edit]

Why does this article contain zero info about the use of EE in trans health? Can anybody add anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkendub (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will definitely add that! Hbary (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethinylestradiol. 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: 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) 04:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still the main player?

[edit]

Article says 

EE is used as a medication and is a component of almost all formulations of combined oral contraceptive (COC) pills, being nearly the exclusive estrogen used for this purpose.

But ref is from 1999. Has this changed since? 193.167.228.180 (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revising Wikipedia Assignment: Ethinylestradiol

[edit]

As part of an elective class, a group of four of us will be editing this article over the course of the next 5 weeks. Sections have been assigned to particular team members within our group (Hbary, Kristran, Ucla.cesar).

Our timeline is as follows:

  • 10/18/17 – Choose sections of Ethinylestradiol page to edit and summarize article improvement goals (done, see below)
  • 10/30/17 – Post preliminary edits to page and prepare them for peer review
  • 11/08/17 – Complete peer review, then examine peer review results and revise submission
  • 11/15/17 – Submit final edits to page

Medical Uses (Hbary) -I'm going to be adding intro sentences to this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbary (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verify sources in this section to see if they are up to date
  • Add possible transgender hormonal use (brought up in talk page)
  • Maybe add about emergency contraception? (ex: taking 2 ethinylestradiol pills)

Contraindications (Kandyskim)

  • Expand on contraindications specific for EE
  • Add EE and pregnancy considerations
  • Add EE and breast-feeding considerations
  • Expand on contraindications for COCs containing EE using CDC’s Summary Chart of U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use updated in 2017

Side effects (Ucla.cesar)

  • I plan to compare this section with the therapeutics class notes, in order to make sure the information is up to date. Additionally, I plan to look up the incidence rate of these side effects, in order to provide a better understanding of the medication. I will check FDA updates regarding ethinylestradiol rare reactions, such as venous thromboembolism, cholestatic hepatotoxicity, and endometrial cancer. I will potentially add side effects that are not included in the article or should be expanded on based on current guidelines.

Interactions (Kristran)

  • Provide more complete range of interactions using reliable sources
  • Check/verify citations and sources

Kandyskim (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing notice. Please make sure the sources comply with WP:MEDR and please keep the overall WP:WEIGHT of sections sensible with regard to the rest of the article. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Question 1 (pharmcontributor2017)

  • Good job everyone! I just read your edits and I definitely think that you guys did a great job of expanding on this topic and adding our own clinical knowledge into it. I especially liked the part warning about increased risk of clots because that is an important effect that not everyone knows about. I think that your tone was indeed neutral. There were no biases displayed in this article. The only point I can think to further expand would be to talk about what are examples of the side effects of unopposed estrogen *besides from cancer*. Also, if you can reference any studies that show these things to be true, it might be good since sometimes, weighing the pros and cons of using ethinylestradiol can depend on provider preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.43.22 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your response! I took a look at the examples of the side effects of unopposed estrogen that you are talking about and wasn't sure what you meant. Looking at the side effect section, endometrial cancer was specifically addressed, and beyond that the side effects you are mentioning about unopposed estrogen is addressed in the side effect section as a whole. I've double-checked the sources to make sure that they were referenced appropriately and provided the correct information. In terms of weighing the pros and cons of EE, that goes into clinical decision making and I believe would not be appropriate for the scope of this article. Kristran (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Question 2

  • Great job, your group made some very useful edits to this article. I found just a few sources that may be inappropriate under Wikipedia’s core content policies (for more on these policies, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies). The Goldzieher, Evans, and Wang references appear to be original research articles, which are not allowed because they may only represent the authors’ personal thoughts and conclusions about their research, rather than what is generally accepted in the field. In addition, the citations to UpToDate are not appropriate because UpToDate is a subscription-based service. While we at UCSF have access to the information behind the UpToDate paywall, this will not be the case for all Wikipedia users who may want to go to the cited sources to read for themselves. The same is true for the MicroMedex citation. Even though you have provided a link to a Google Books URL, there is actually no free content available when you click on the link. Lastly, the citations to the www.verywell.com website may or may not be very reliable. I clicked on the “About Us” link and it does seem like the content contributors are all health professionals, but it was unclear what, if any, peer review or quality check process is utilized. Also, it was a little disturbing that they openly solicit advertising and that advertising comprises part of their business model (see https://mediakit.verywell.com/verywell-advertising/). It might be better to replace the citations to www.verywell.com with another more reliable source.

-Thank you so much for the feedback, and taking time to view each cite and see if it's appropriate. I agree with you, and have changed the Very Well citation to a more legitimate one, Mayo Clinic! Hbary (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Question 3

Awesome job guys! I'm reviewing the format style and if it's consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. I would say you guys did a great job in formatting making all of the content easy to read. All of the terms used were in lay language and if they were not, that word or phrase was highlighted so it can be directed to a new wikipedia article explaining more about it. All the information provided was cited in Wikipedia's format with the source at the end of the sentence. Overall you guys did a good job with formatting!

Peer Review Question 4 (pharmcontributor2017)

  • As everyone else has mentioned, good job, you guys really went into details with this article. I only found one instance where the wording was a little too close to the original text, which was the last sentence of the first paragraph of contraindications. The original text from MMWR reads "For these women, as for all women, discussions about contraception for breastfeeding women should include information about risks, benefits, and alternatives," and the wording is pretty close there. I also noted that the last sentence of the "Medical Use" section could also use a citation. To contribute something not related to plagarism, I think there may be a bit too much medical jargon in some of the language (i.e., the phrase hypertension >=160/100) and a few too many numbers. It makes the article harder to use for the average Wiki reader. BookSmart (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in response to feedback (Kandyskim)

  • The biggest edit I made was in response to peer review 4's feedback that the contraindications listed might have too much medical jargon and few too many numbers. I personally don't agree with this feedback but I do recognize that the paragraph is info heavy and thus I listed each point as bullets and made sure to link all medical jargons to existing wiki articles so that the words and numbers aren't so intimidating. I also reworded the sentence that peer review 4 suggested was too similar to the original text. Kandyskim (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in response to feedback (ucla.cesar)

  • I edited some of the references to a Cochrane review journal article, instead of using Up to Date, a subscription based service. This edit was made to be more accommodating to Wikipedia users.Ucla.cesar (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachael.kateee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nc1018! (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachael.kateee/Ethinylestradiol/Bibliography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael.kateee (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible articles? Rachael.kateee (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

The strong Lead the article had when it came to the medication and answered some strong questions that might have challenged the reader. From the importance of the Lead when it came to the medication to what it is and how it is used, I hope readers stay engaged with this article. Daeshjeam (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethinylestradiol&oldid=1207143012"