Talk:Placenta praevia

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Placenta praevia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colettedepardieu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race

"Race is a controversial risk factor, with some studies finding minorities at higher risk and others finding no difference."

This doesn't make sense. Who are "minorities"? Minorities in one country are almost certainly the majority in another country. It's a word that I don't think makes sense in this context.Chmac (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

The illustration of the four types of Placenta Previa are great, I only wish there was a normal one to go next to them for those who want to know where the placenta should be. 98.82.22.154 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The following paragraph has been marked as a contradiction:

"The goal of this type of delivery is to save the mother, and both methods will often kill the baby. These methods were used for many years before Caesarean section and saved the lives of both mothers and babies with this condition"

I can see where the editor is coming from because on the one hand it says this procedure can kill the baby and on the other hand that it can save. Presumably this is because the baby has a low to zero chance of survival without intervention, and therefore the two sentences do not contradict. Could somebody with expertise in this area re-word this paragraph to make this clearer and ideally add a citation. Garemoko (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US political issues

"In the U.S., women covered by private insurance are 22% more likely to receive a caesarean section than women covered by Medicaid.[21]" This is a US-specific controversial political issue. It adds no relevant information about the topic and is an obvious attempt to support a specific political viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:fe0:c310:a190:20b1:bbe7:db50:9988 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section was removed by 2605:a000:a3c5:b400:5d7:e4c7:7fda:87bb in the following edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Placenta_praevia&type=revision&diff=787566442&oldid=776026957. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this review article on placenta previa risks, abortion, and miscarriage

Transcluded to Talk:abortion.

I think this article should be used as a reference in this article: < ref >{ { cite journal|last1=Karami |first1=Manoochehr | last2=Jenabi|first2=Ensiyeh|title=Placenta previa after prior abortion: a meta-analysis |date=28 July 2017|journal=Biomedical Research and Therapy|volume=4|issue=7|page=1441–1450|url=http://www.bmrat.org/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/197 } }< /ref > --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source was discussed at Talk:Abortion, where editors objected on several grounds: first, that The Vietnamese Journal of Biomedicine is a rarely cited minor journal with an unknown reputation; second, that the article fails to distinguish between different types of abortion and different gestational stages (that is, between early medical abortion and late surgical abortion); fourth, that it over-simplifies a complex issue; and, fifth, that correlation does not mean causation. NightHeron (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a meta-analysis; it is not uncommon for a meta-analyses to omit the sort of details you list. As a rule they are more general in scope than the articles they use data from. However, the individual studies on the topic do address these issues. Just because it doesn't include the specific details you mention does not mean it "fails" as a legitimate review article for the purposes of the medical content policy.

I looked through other articles of the Vietnamese Journal of Biomedicine; it is a credible journal of the sort usually used as a reliable source on Wikipedia and is not a crackpot publication.

On the other talk page, you have not yet responded to the specific study I cited which discussed the association between placenta previa and early surgical abortion alone.

Probable mechanisms for this effect are discussed in the existing academic literature. It is not an overly complex topic, although it is not firmly nailed down yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a debate here between the two of us, largely running over the same ground, would be productive. This discussion should continue at Talk:Abortion, where it is likely to get input from more editors than here. Note that before our edits during the last 2 days there had been a total of 14 edits to this talk-page since 2008, an average of 1 edit per year. NightHeron (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead I think each article warrants its own discussion, & if you don't want to have two conversations I don't mind if you use a transclusion template to combine them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]