Talk:Pelvic organ prolapse

	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.

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.

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 Pelvic organ prolapse.

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

Request for images

OMG pics plz 71.169.69.145 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh

Don't know why clarification was needed for the word mesh. It's a basic word: recommend you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh.

I removed a weird, unsourced and wrong-seeming bit in the "grading" section: "Also referred to as Vaginal Mesh, this synthetic fiber is used to keep babies safe from injury during pregnancy. It was created as a response to the high mortality rate babies in woman that had a wider vagina due to excess sexual intercourse." Leigh Honeywell (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presently unhelpful, and duplicated, image

All those GA, Ap, Ba, etc., items in the illustration need explanation in the text, or the image is more confusing than anything else. It also shouldn't be used twice in the same article. This this article covers a range of condition, there is no need for the infobox to have an illustration. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article

As seen with this link, Mbpippen moved the article away from "Female genital prolapse" to "Pelvic Organ Prolapse," stating, "This condition is internationally recognized as Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). The ICD uses genital prolapse, but women are told they have POP.http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iuga...)."

Two things to keep in mind are WP:Common name and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles. And, of course, per WP:Article titles, we don't capitalize our titles throughout in cases like these.

I'll contact WP:Med about weighing in on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters are not needed in the article title. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists uses pelvic organ prolapse [1] as does Cochrane [2]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Drchriswilliams--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree no caps needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not see in the ref to support the new title. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you thinking we should move the article back, Doc James, or keep it titled Pelvic organ prolapse? I haven't yet done the WP:Google test on the terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the internet access to figure it out right now. And thus also remain undecided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We'll get back to this eventually. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

10.1016/j.ogc.2015.10.008

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]