Talk:Vaginal yeast infection

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal hygiene methods or tight-fitting clothing, such as tights and thong underwear, do not appear to increase the risk"

Who made this claim in the first place? As long as remember it was pretty much always about non absorbing and non breathable (also made so by stacking layers) fabric making it more likely to develop a yeast infection. Sobel JD claims in the given source

"the use of well-ventilated clothing and cotton underwear could be of value in preventing infection. However, no increased risk for vulvovaginal candidosis has been found among wearers of tight clothing or non-cotton underwear"

So what happened to this study he co-authored? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15041994 Mind you that the construction and wearing habits of pantyliners or pantyhose can be very very different.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the suggestion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there others in his field who support this conclusion? Perhaps with a more refined line of reasoning. What do his sources on this specific point say? The main problem I see here is that there are several articles in Wikipedia on those items (Liners, Tights, Spandex) in several languages. Usually claiming that there are problems with synthetic and/or too tight clothing. Some distinguish between constructions and wearing habits. Like pointing out plastic backsides on liners as vaginal yeast growth encouraging. Or discouraging vaginal yeast overgrowth by wearing tights that have a ventilated cotton lining instead of adding an additional layer of underwear. And than there is this article on the most read English wikipedia on this specific health issue basically saying: "No, no problems" and the source reading like "No positive association. But it might still be good to take precautions." and and older study with the same author says 2x the risk. And than there is Trip leading me to this: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/954024-overview Of course Sobel could be the Galileo of Candidal vulvovaginitis. This is in no way meant as an insult!--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Emedicine is not a great source but which part of it are you referring too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. My mistake. Looks like I was too annoyed to notice the TRIP suggested article was only about avoiding misdiagnoses. Forget the emedicine article! Just clean up this article: en:Pantyhose#Risks. As I'm not into edit wars. Nor can I claim to have any title of authority that may prevent people from attacking me in some way of form. If I where You, I'd just note that newer research doubts this cause.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relieved this problem appears to be solved. Gives a lot more freedom editing related articles (undergarment overview, body-stockings and other languages) and organizing photo shoots with live models. However I'm still puzzled by this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15041994 Is this supposed to concern only patients who already have at least 4 episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis episodes in 1 year? Hmm.. now that I actually write this question down it seams to be obvious. A confirmation or correction is still preferred.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that is a prospective study and a primary source, we should use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS will look in more detail Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was under the false impression that all arcticle on pubmed are peer reviewed.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A review article is NOT the same thing as a peer reviewed article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place

This is more of a general overview of probiotics rather than specifically about their use to prevent or treat VVC. Probably best on the probiotics page IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Probiotics are living micro-organisms (bacteria or yeast) which are intended to treat and prevent diseases when administered in sufficient quantities.[1] Example probiotics which have been used to treat and prevent candida infections are Lactobacillus fermentum RC-14, Lactobacillus fermentum B-54, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus acidophilus.[1] Probiotics can be taken by mouth or directly administered vaginally. If taken daily by mouth, the organisms transfer from the rectum to the vagina.[1] Probiotics are intended to lead to colonisation of the vagina with beneficial species which release toxic metabolic byproducts (e.g. lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocin) which negatively effect the ability of candida species to colonize, adhere, invade and grow, thereby restoring the healthy microbiotic balance and preventing recurrence of the candidal overgrowth.[1] Increasing levels of resistance to antifungal medication and their potential adverse effects has lead to more interest in the role of probiotics to treat VVC.[1]"

The first sentence defines what probiotics are generally, yes, but overall l feel it is fairly specific to VVC. Could trim. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people do not know what they are they can easily click on the link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, Not sure if we should quote only this source when talking about probiotics ... this Cochrane Protocol [1], while not a finished cochrane review, states in the literature review:

"Some evaluations have shown that probiotics are effective against VVC, and that their adverse effects are minor (Jeavons 2003; Falagas 2006; Martinez 2009a), while others failed to demonstrate their efficacy in VVC (Pirotta 2004; Falagas 2006)."

...so it seems that there is contradictory evidence in the literature. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait for it to be published IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Matthew Ferguson 57 research protocols are not good sources. They are not systematic reviews. They fail WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not quoting the findings of the source, which are not published in the protocol, but the literature review... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. Maybe. Lets see what other think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a sense that's a good secondary source - does a protocol get peer review at Cochrane? -- Scray (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e Xie HY, Feng D, Wei DM, Chen H, Mei L, Wang X, Fang F. Probiotics for vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD010496. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010496.

Requested move 11 May 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. By my count, there are eight editors supporting the move and two in opposition, with supporters demonstrating substantial evidence of the proposed move target being the common name of the condition. bd2412 T 17:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidal vulvovaginitis → Vaginal yeast infection – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Books Ngram shows "vaginal yeast infection" is four times as popular as "Candidal vulvovaginitis" and has been the more common term since 1985. On Google Trends, "Candidal vulvovaginitis" doesn't even register because it is such a rare search term. Kaldari (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other kinds of yeast/fungus that can infect the body. The current title is more specific and appropriate. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Ferguson 57: What other types of yeast infect the vagina? According to this article "Vaginal yeast infections are due to excessive growth of Candida." Is that incorrect? Kaldari (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per http://www.webmd.com/women/tc/vaginal-yeast-infections-topic-overview perhaps a way forward would be to develop a content (here or elsewhere) on Vaginal yeast infections. ping Kaldari GregKaye 06:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are extremely rare cases of women having vaginal infections due to non-Candida fungi (typically in immune-suppressed patients). It doesn't seem to be common enough to justify not applying WP:COMMONNAME, however. We can certainly explain that the term 'Candidal vulvovaginitis' is only applicable when the infection is caused by Candida. The alternative would be to create a separate 'Vaginal yeast infection' article that is almost identical to this article. The reason I'm bringing this up is because this article doesn't show up within the first 100 Google search results for 'yeast infection' or 'vaginal yeast infection'. If people can't find this article, it's not very useful. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Ferguson 57: I added a new section on Less common infection types. The only extensive survey I was able to find of infection species found less than 1% prevalence for non-Candida species (specifically Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on condition that a content, however brief or long, be added on non-Candida fungi. Kaldari as a suggestion perhaps you or another editor could draft something along these lines in a subsequent talk page section. GregKaye 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Section added. Kaldari (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose not convinced this is needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support include a redirect and there should be no problem.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per wp:Medmos "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)". The results of a Google search are irrelevant. The new content added about non Candida infection is also based on primary source, and does not meet wp:medrs. If vaginal yeast infection is to be a stand alone article, it should be a short disambiguation linking to VVC and other types of fungal infection. We are an accurate encyclopedia, not a purveyor of oversimplification to the point of misleading readers. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew Ferguson 57: I couldn't find any secondary sources mentioning non-Candida vaginal infections (although I don't have access to that many medical sources). Can you find any? I'm not suggesting that we mislead readers, I'm suggesting that we (very slightly) expand the scope of the article so that it covers all vaginal yeast infections, while concentrating primarily on Candida albicans. The article is already non-specific as it covers infections by multiple species of Candida, many of which respond differently to different treatments. 'Vaginal yeast infection' is not misleading or unscientific. In fact, it seems to be used in medical sources quite commonly (judging by PubMed and Google Scholar searches). I understand that it is not completely accurate to treat them as interchangable terms, and I think that we can explain that distinction in the article. There are no other articles on other types of vaginal yeast infections (nor do I think there ever will be), so a disambiguation page wouldn't make sense. Kaldari (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to Kaldari. Candidal vulvovaginitis might sound as jargon to a lot of people, so I find it prudent to retain 'Vaginal yeast infections' as the title for this article. As pointed out by Kaldari, the scope of the article could be slightly increased to include non-Candidal infections. -- Netha (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDMOS also says to write for a general audience and avoid jargon. So it seems we have conflicting instructions. Powers T 12:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is not what it says as far as article naming goes. Read the section about article naming, quoted above. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, which is why I included the word "also". The word indicates that my contribution is in addition to acknowledging the preceding point, which, in this case, was what MEDMOS said about article naming. What you seem to have missed is that the part I referred to does not include any language exempting article titles from its provisions. Thus, the two points are in conflict within the domain of article titles. Powers T 22:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as has been said, as long as there is a redirect it ought to be fine. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Candidal vulvovaginitis isn't the commmonly used term in literature: the more prevalent term is vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC). My first choice would be to rename this article to Vaginal yeast infection per WP:COMMONNAME and as an exception to WP:MEDMOS which is allowed (This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions) with redirects to Vaginal yeast infection from both the current title and Vulvovaginal candidiasis. My second choice is to rename the article to Vulvovaginal candidiasis with redirects to it from both the current title and Vaginal yeast infection. Ca2james (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More opposition on another thread- There is another thread about this on wt:med where a few other editors have expressed opposition to this. This rename has no consensus imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they oppose they should come here to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exact link to the other thread is here, it consists of three editors, two of whom have already commented on this thread. Pinging TylerDurden8823 to be sure that we haven't missed anyone. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-my objection on the WT:MED thread was based on the scope of the article (e.g., whether we're solely talking about candidal vaginal infections or with non-candida species). Since the discussion above addressed my concern, I have no additional qualms with renaming the article though I agree that a redirect would certainly be appropriate. I agree that many non-medical readers would not know to search for candidal vulvovaginitis when attempting to find information about candidal vaginal yeast infections. There definitely needs to be a section discussing non-candidal vaginal yeast infections as well as mentioned above. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason why I feel this is wrong us that "vaginitis" is less precise term than "vulvovaginitis", which more accurately dennotes the location of this infection. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"It is not classified as a sexually transmitted infection; however, it may occur more often in those who are frequently sexually active.[1][2]"

I'm not entirely certain about this language. It is sometimes classed as an STD based on context, i.e. there's an entire chapter on vaginal thrush in the CDC's 2015 STD treatment handbook... "Vulvovaginal Candidiasis - 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines". www.cdc.gov. 2019-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-16.. I don't like us saying something which is not entirely true.

BUT I agree we shouldn't call it an STD in the lede because most he majority of cases of vaginal thrush are not sexually transmitted. However, some cases /are/ sexually transmitted, so I think we do need to say that somewhere.

I think I would like this to say:

"It may occur more often in those who are frequently sexually active.[1][2] In some rare cases, it can be sexually transmitted."

Or maybe even this is undue weight for the lead? And we should just not mention STIs in the lede and just point that out later on? Mvolz (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Oral contraceptives"

In the Causes section, it says oral contraceptives may increase the risk. What does this mean? is birth control pills or something else? Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Vaginal_yeast_infection"