Talk:Contraceptive vaginal ring

Article needs an image that demonstrates the size of the ring
It would be good to add a photo of the ring, lying on a table, next to a ruler with both metric and English measurements. The current photo shows what appears to be a very small hand holding the ring, which makes the ring look much larger than it is. Joie de Vivre 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Next time I open another pack I will take a picture with a penny in it or something. :D --Sakura 11:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be great. LyrlTalk C 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the photo to one with a ruler in it for comparison, since Wikipedia discourages using coins for scale. The photo's quality right now is not the best, but I will replace it as soon as I can. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2008 (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)

Don't know where to put this, but this seems awkward in the side effects area under the main article:

"NuvaRing is weight neutral.[19][20] Additional side effect information is provided in the NuvaRing full prescribing information.[8][18]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.23.168 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concise/clearer language needed under "Side effects"
The paragraph under "Side effects" which begins with "Etonogestrel, the specific progestin used in NuvaRing, is the active metabolite of the inactive prodrug desogestrel, one of two third-generation progestins..." is a heavy-handed paragraph with an extremely important message for users and potential users of the NuvaRing. I suggest that this paragraph and its language be less convoluted so that everyone can benefit from a comprehensive explanation of risk. (This does not necessarily mean the paragraph needs to be "dumbed down" but use less medical language, or be wary of its word choice. For example, breaking down that first sentence into smaller sentences, changing "venous thrombosis" to "blood clots" and explaining that "etonogestrel" is a hormone.)

Djamila71.103.76.191 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Djamila: Be bold and go for it! Vectro 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference needed for final statement under "Side effects"
The final part of "Side effects" states: "Side effects not observed in the clinical trial but widely reported in online boards are vaginal dryness, pain during sex, depression, feelings of anxiety, mood swings and loss of sexual drive."

While the rest of this section is properly referenced, this statement lacks any references to said online boards, or any possible responses to these reports. I suggest that some kind of specific references be made to support this claim, or else remove the statement until such evidence can be provided, as unfounded statements like this may lend themselves to unfounded paranoia about what is still a relatively new and unfamiliar product. I do not believe that the statement should not be made at all, just that it should not be made without proper reference(s).

--67.193.140.90 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Phantom recommendation?
An editor recently changed wording from "it is recommended" to "users may" (diff) with the edit summary "rm reference to phantom recommendation". This description of the recommendation as "phantom" puzzles me; the citation following these sentences says, "If NuvaRing® does slip out, follow the directions below:". I thought such wording indicated the manufacturer was recommending that those actions be taken.

I believe the word "recommend" more clearly conveys that these are instructions published by a medical provider and would like to return to that usage. Would it be better if the article said, "the manufacturer recommends" instead of "it is recommended"? LyrlTalk C 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be stated that the recommendation is provided by the manufacturer, rather than it seeming like it could be just common practice or colloquial. Whatever404 (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference required under Side Effects
A reference is required for the statement "Many young women using NuvaRing have been hospitalized due to strokes, which in some cases have been fatal." Niamh K (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Link 21 down
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.43.211 (talk • contribs)

Revert/Edit "Lawsuit" section?
This section feels like a lot of heresay. Some of the language is unprofessional ("Recently, an undercover reporter penetrated a Merck meeting where they were serving doctors alcohol and having dancers perform to encourage them to prescribe the product despite the flurry of dead woman associated with it"), and Link 23 within it is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibheaog (talk • contribs)

The typical failure rate of NuvaRing
The typical failure rate of NuvaRing is wrong, it should be closer to 9% (Trussell, 2011)

Trussell, J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011, 81, 397–404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukhan12uk (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NuvaRing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061130061025/http://www.nuvaring.com/Authfiles/Images/309_76087.pdf to http://www.nuvaring.com/Authfiles/Images/309_76087.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Galfarhat (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II Possible Edits
Expand description in of the introductory paragraph.

Elaborate on the hormone dosing of the rings --> explain how this dosing is controlled.

Expand description of the progesterone-only ring.

Comparison of effectiveness between the two types of rings.

Side effects & Complications of both types of rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Navarro Zapiain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Lee Express (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews from Group 2
Person A amoises 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

''Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]'' Yes, the lead paragraph is concise and was updated to reflect the new content added to the article’s sub headers. All of the added content was relevant to the topic and was up-to-date; however, the effectiveness between the two types of rings seemed to be included mainly in the “combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring” sub header, and could possibly be moved under lead content or Advantages/Disadvantages sub header. Unsure if “9% of women using a vaginal ring will still get pregnant every year” is only for combined hormonal vaginal rings or for any kind of vaginal ring.

''Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]'' The group did expand the description of vaginal rings in the introductory paragraph. Although perhaps they could include the typical size of a vaginal ring. They were also able to elaborate on the hormone dosing of each of the hormonal vaginal rings and how the dosing is controlled. They expanded on the content within the progesterone-only ring sub header. When comparing the effectiveness between the two types of rings they included percentages but this may be easier to comprehend if it’s stated “Between 3-90 women in 1000 will become pregnant using this form of contraception for a year” (https://patient.info/sexual-health/hormone-pills-patches-and-rings/contraceptive-vaginal-ring#nav-0). Side effects & Complications of both types of rings were noted in their respective sub headers.

''Question 3a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]'' The content added was neutral and did not seem biased towards either contraceptive vaginal ring options; instead, it allows the reader to get a better understanding between the 2 different types of vaginal rings.

Person B R.Ea, Pharm.D Candidate (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

The article so far does a relatively good job following the guiding framework, however there can be some things that could be improved. The article is separated into 4 distinct clear and easy to understand sections such as "advantages/disadvantage" and "Progesterone only vaginal ring". I feel like some of these sections could be combined into a new section such as "Types of Vaginal Rings". On top of this, I believe that the article could use more sections such as "What is a contraceptive vaginal ring", "How does it work", "Costs", and "Usages Around the World". These sections could add a little more depth and understanding to these contraceptive devices. The article utilizes mostly neutral as well as lay language. Any words that are not very commonly known are linked to its respective Wikipedia article for further explanation. The lead of the article explains what a vaginal ring is and how it works, however, I feel like it could include more information such as a brief history and their prevalence in society today. The lead of the article is missing a brief description of the article's major sections. There is one image in this article that shows what a typical vaginal ring looks like which serves as a visual for what the article is talking about. Something to consider is to add more photos of other types of vaginal rings (not just NuvaRing) because they might look different!

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

It was proposed to expand the lead as well as elaborate on hormone dosing for the various types of rings. The lead has been expanded, but there is not much information regarding the various dosages of the hormones present in the rings. It would be useful to see how hormone dosing is controlled and what plays a role in higher vs lower dosages. The mechanism of action of each type of ring is useful to see, however I think the article could benefit splitting each type of ring into subsections such as "dosing", "uses", "mechanism of action", and "side effects" would make the organization of the article a bit better.

Question 3b. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

Yes, the article is supported with references that are not only up to date, but reliable and relevant to the article. I particularly like the reference regarding a clinical trial about the relative effectiveness of the progesterone vaginal ring. I think a useful reference to add might be one that talks about how using this ring can affect patients from various disease states. Another reference could be the usage of these rings for menstrual cycle maintenance in trans populations as it would make your article more gender inclusive.

Person C Markgutin (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The headings you all created helped organized the article and now it's easier to follow.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? I would suggest separating out the disadvantages and advantages section, for further improvement. Additionally, I would suggest adding a history section to understand how the technology was initially developed and further progressed into the product it is today.

Question 3c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]

I believe the edits made on this article are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style and have only improved the clarity around the subject.

Person D

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

This article has been improved. The information added to this page is relevant, up-to-date, and works to explain many aspects of contraceptive vaginal rings. I think in terms of the content, some of the words can be rewritten in simpler terms. For example, "postpartum" and "longer duration effect" can be made simpler since we should be writing at a sixth grade level. Also to keep it consistent, since you explained how progesterone works to prevent pregnancy, it would be beneficial to also explain how the combined hormones work together to prevent pregnancy as well.

One thing that was confusing was that the opening paragraph mentions HIV prevention as a possible indication while one of the disadvantages listed is that it does not offer any protection against STIs. The photo caption also states that it cannot be used to prevent STIs. The article is contradicting in this way.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

The introductory paragraph has improved and gives good background information. The dosing was explained in terms of how much of the drug would be delivered in a day, but a good place to expand this would be to add more information on how the hormones work in the body. Lastly, there was no direct comparison between the effectiveness, but information on their efficacies was provided.

Question 3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

While reading the article, I found that the information was only in reference to women. While women are among the population that use vaginal rings as contraceptives, I think using "individuals" would be more appropriate on this page since it would include women, non-binary people, trans-men, and anyone with a vagina.Galfarhat (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

amoises 16:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)