Talk:Contraceptive patch

Does anybody know
Does anybody know if it's safe to wear the patch 4 of 4 weeks instead of 3 of 4, if only for one cycle? Or if it's safe to only be without a patch for 3 days or so instead of 7? Thank you.

You oughtn't wear the patch at all. Chooserr 06:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically?
...Free Republic is what passes for a source these days?--Aolanonawanabe 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) ..Oh, no, see, it's all good now that he's added the Drudge Report as a source to give it some more balance--Aolanonawanabe 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * and another one, and I quote " you may be at risk, contact a Lopez Hodes attorney today", I'm sure they can promote their own lawfirm--Aolanonawanabe 06:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the should be re-added because it is a source and it shows the gravity of the situation. Chooserr 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The gravity of what situation? The link you're posting is to a law firm, it is not a source, it's a comercial for a non-notable law firm--Aolanonawanabe 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if law firms are involved do you think that it's safe...if there is a law firm dedicated to helping women sue these people who put them in danger...do you think is safe. I believe that it accurately depicts the gravity of this situation! Chooserr 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit
A link to the news page of an anti-drug website that doesn't cite it's sources is not a reliable source. Until you can produce a reliable source, it should stay out.--Sean|Bla ck 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You personally believe it unreliable...do a websearch if you please...just put the section back. Thanks, Chooserr 07:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * hometown newspaper Chooserr
 * another page Chooserr
 * Pro-life site Chooserr
 * yet another reporter picks it up Chooserr
 * yet again more news coverage for this case Chooserr
 * Some Pro-life fems are shocked as well Chooserr
 * Thank you. I restored the section, using the newspapers as sources, because the others all advocate a position, thus making them less reliable. While in this instance, the story is true, but it's best to go with the most neutral sources.--Sean|Bla ck 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* send in the clow- meatpuppets
--Aolanonawanabe 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't need meat puppets if I wasn't afraid of being baited and banned like I was countless other times by your lot Chooserr

What I got rid of
The only thing I got rid of was the repetitive section on "you take off the patch, and put a new one on" which was repeated something like 3 times. Chooserr 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I unbolded a piece of text. If they are so interested they can read through the article. Chooserr 08:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is vital to proper use. Without the 1 week where you don't use the patch, the estrogen levels are not maintained on a cyclical variation and breakthrough bleeding may be increased.  Additionally, it is definitely necessary to to use a backup form of contraception such as spermicide or condoms for the first week of patch wear, because there is delayed onset of action.


 * Also, your points on religion and the patch are redundant with the Birth control content.


 * As a pharmacist, I am reverting for the sake of proper use.Uthbrian (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says alot about the patch on that page...Chooserr 08:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And as for the spermicide or condoms I'm sorry, I didn't know for I don't use them. That's no reason to scrap all my edits many of which were right and important. Chooserr 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, you just admitted you don't know what you're talking about, but you're editing the article anyway???????--SarekOfVulcan 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited to the best of my knowledge and trying to compensate I use google. If I find something that isn't included in an article I will add it. You still haven't replied though to why your version of condoms which doesn't explain why HPV is not prevented very well is better than mine which has a link to the American Cancer Society...Chooserr 08:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification (Lawsuit)
Clarified that the effects being blamed on Evra (blood clots, thrombosis, etc) have been observed in users of the pill as well, and that no research is yet available to show how much more likely it is (or even if it is more likely) to occur in patch users. This is stated in the already referenced newspaper articles, and it didn't seem very NPOV to me to simply state that someone died on the patch and a lawsuit resulted without putting it in context with other similar hormonal birth control issues. Col.Kiwi 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Skewed statistics
Claiming a three-fold increase in risk of death ("The Associated Press in 2004 demonstrated that the risk of death from using the patch is three times the risk of death from oral contraceptives.") based on such fine-grained measurements such as 1/200000 versus 3/200000 is grasping. Further, the claim in the first paragraph "The Patch has been associated with higher rates of strokes and thombosis than combined contraceptive pills" is unsubstantiated (vague, non-specific and unreferenced). -trax 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Religion & the patch"
Is this really a valid section? And with a link to "God," no less?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.240.117 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I concur. This section seems out of place; the religion section should adequately cover the objections to contraceptives. JSacharuk 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Weight gain parameter in infobox
I would like to treat this parameter the same on all the hormonal contraception articles. Please read my opinion and discuss this issue at Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill. LyrlTalk C 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness?
This article states that it is generally thought to be just as effective as the pill. I'd like to see a source on that, first of all. Secondly, is that all it is? A thought? Or is it proven to be as effective? Ceejus 18:08, 04 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added Contraceptive Technology as a source. In clinical trials the failure rates for patch were similar to those with COCs (i.e. theoretical failure rates similar).  Typical use failure rates have not yet been published, so the patch is presumed to be at least as good as COCs in typical use.  If anything, the patch may have a typical use failure rate that is lower than that for COCs, since in clinical trials the patch was more likely to be used correctly and consistently than COC, and errors with the patch appear to be less likely to result in ovulation. (Contraceptive Technology, Chapter 12, by Kavita Nanda, Page 272).  So it has been proven to be as effective, the main question is if it is more effective in typical use.  Zodon (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Media monitors kinda questionable
What is with this link? http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/31895 I'm skeptical on this source. First of all, it is not by CBS, so it's weird that it is the link for fact supposedly from a CBS report. 75.73.32.46 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please eliminate misleading paragraph
The second paragraph under Lawsuits, telling of a Georgia woman's lawsuit for a pulmonary embolism, needs to checked and probably deleted. Using the link http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/31895 provided by the article shows the lawsuit is against a "Triaminic Vapor Patch", NOT a birth control patch. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.130.83 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Strength differences
Can a section on the differences in strength between OrthoEvra and Evra be mentioned? I believe part of the lawsuit hinges on the fact that OrthoEvra was a higher strength and therefore more risky than Evra, and J+J allegedly knew this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.224.111 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OrthoEvra is now discontinued in USA, please update
In the article, it says OrthoEvra is the only patch sold in the US. It's actually discontinued as of about February 2015. There is a new generic patch named Xulane that is sold by Mylan and is now the only patch sold in the US. This information should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.15.186 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OUTDATED!
I think this article should be absolutely redone, starting with the title. This should be renamed to Evra-patch and have a separate one for contraceptive patch, which actually talks about contraceptive patches, as there are more than one! http://pipeline.ctiexchange.org/products/gestodene-and-ee-patch www.lisvy.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanASR (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contraceptive patch. 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/20050126093817/http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/patch.htm to http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/patch.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)