Talk:Menstrual cup: Difference between revisions

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's Health Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). Sanitation High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles High This article has been rated as High-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 Menstrual cup. 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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Gravidity and parity#Parity|parity]] The anchor (#Parity) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 5 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofia--szigethy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sedersta. Peer reviewers: Ellis414.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2019, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ldolle, Aoka222, YooCo, Elizabeth Hays. Peer reviewers: Brandon James Ross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Chalmers patented the first usable commercial cup in 1937.[39] Later menstrual cups were patented in 1935, 1937, and 1950.[40][41][42]

How can later patents be dated earlier than the first patent?! Could someone either explain it (in the article) or correct it? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to "Other menstrual cups were patented". I think that's correct/better. Well spotted, Ibn Battuta. EMsmile (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add disadvantages and challenges to using menstrual cups under the 'Use' section, including some initial concerns such as pain, discomfort, or reproductive harms
2. Update and add onto the 'Safety' section about adverse events and risks of infection, TSS, and IUD dislodgment

YooCo (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the updated incidence of TSS for 2019, I think it might be improved by changing the wording for the total cumulative incidence of TSS from "was" to "have/has been" as the incidence is multiple events rather than in a single event. Changing risk status from "was" to "is" as the risk is current. Changing "versus" to "when compared to" for the risks compared to high absorbency tampons. You could also remove the incidence covered in the paragraph immediately prior as this paragraph appears to be an update. Otherwise, this draft reflects a neutral point of view, your points are verifiable, the edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style and I don't see any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Your edit substantially adds to the article by providing updates to the incidence of associated risks. Brandon James Ross (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note editing tags, FYI Health policy (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence, "In addition, studies have shown that infection risk does not significantly increase with the use of menstrual cups, compared to the use of pads or tampons", is it saying that there is less risk with cups than tampons and pads? This was slightly confusing to me.

Sources: Good source added, it is a secondary source. One question: Is the information following the first cited sentence also from that source?

Met their goals for safety update of toxic shock syndrome.

The addition is of neutral point of view and edits follow wikipedias manual. (Foley1115 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Completed the goal of adding to the safety section with relevant information on toxic shock syndrome. Properly cited sources and neutral tone was kept.

Do.shelly (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to change the current diagram under "Use" to this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cup#/media/File:Menstrual_cup_insertion.svg. The current diagram is messy and visually confusing in comparison to the one I have linked.Sofia--szigethy (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about creating a link to the Feminine Hygiene article on Wikipedia.--Jasminrw (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Politics and environmentalism, and marketing most sources discussing Menstrual cups are very biased and make misleading claims about other menstrual products while making outlandish claims about the benefits of Menstrual cups and omitting the very serious risks associated with its use. While the Wikipedia article isn't as biased as most sources about Menstrual cups it is very incomplete and needs a lot of revision. The research is outdated and most of it is anecdotal. In the course of the next few weeks, I will try to make it more complete and cite new studies and factual evidence about Menstrual cups and other menstrual cups. This article contains also inaccurate and outdated information about Tampons and pads. One example of unreported risks is the increased risk of prolapse caused by suction as well as the increased risk of Endometriosis caused by the reflux of menstrual blood into the Cervix. There is also an increased risk of TSS when compared to tampons due to the Oxygen capacity of Menstrual cups with the Silicone Cups being the most prone to develop TSS. ^[1] Scripteladora (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Scripteladora[reply]

I think we should add images for the insertion of menstrual cups.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Femmecup_7-Fold.jpg --> 7 fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Femmecup_C-Fold.jpg --> C fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Femmecup_Punch-Down-Fold.jpg --> punch down fold https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Femmecup_Lotus-Fold.jpg --> Lotus fold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a few more related products would be better for the 'Related Products' section. I found an article about 'Femmycycle' which is an innovated menstrual cup invented by a doctor. I added the link of the article below.

http://www.journaljammr.com/index.php/JAMMR/article/view/15349 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest reasons why menstrual cup should be more accessible is that it is environmentally friendly. You did include a section about the advantages of the menstrual cup and also the environmental impact it has, however, I think it would be great if you add more information from this article. This article includes how non-reusable sanitary pads and tampons impact the environment negatively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919303179?via%3Dihub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdus0525 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvolz:, regarding your restoration in this edit of material unsourced since last August, you mentioned in the summary that you will add some sources. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I am wondering if the text for the different sizes still needs some more tweaking. That detail about the age of the woman (over 30, under 30) might be outdated. I don't have a very solid reference at hand but e.g. the website of Ruby Cup explains it quite well. It depends on the flow and the type of cervix, not the age nor the vaginal births: https://rubycup.com/products/ruby-cup-medium Might need to wait until a proper publication comes out with this. Meanwhile, I think the wording should be clear that age alone is not a decisive factor for the size of menstrual cup required. EMsmile (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend that we change the article to include a section about young girls using menstrual cups and their impacts on young girls health. if one of you Wikipedia users Hood edit this article to include that section, that would be amazing. but if you can't, I would be happy to do it for you. 166.198.21.72 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth reconsidering if the thickness of the walls is the best way to distinguish types of menstrual cups. I appreciate the need to distinguish now that both types are more integrated within the article. However, I find thin-walled cup and thick-walled cup confusing as they're lengthy, easy to mix up terms that I didn't come across in any of the research I did when adding information to this article. They also don't describe what are in my opinion the most obvious differences when looking at or using the cups: their shape, placement, and function.

I propose using one of the following sets of terms:

1. Cervical and vaginal cups is the terminology used by "Menstrual cup use, leakage, acceptability, safety, and availability: a systematic review and meta-analysis", a review cited 15 times throughout the article, and that seems to me to be one of the more definitive pieces of research on this topic. The downside of this method of distinction is that I don't recall seeing it used outside of journal articles.

2. Bell-shaped and disc-shaped is the terminology used by several smaller studies as well as many online and news articles cited by this article. Given the terms' wide use and visual nature, they're likely more helpful to readers.

3. Finally, cups and discs are used by some manufacturers and online articles as distinct subcategories. However, this could be confusing as some cervical cups are labelled simply as menstrual cups.

I don't think there's a perfect answer to this question as each option has downsides, but I think there are more useful and widely used distinctions than the thickness of walls available to us.

This was my first talk page post, so please let me know if I did anything wrong or could have phrased this better. Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghosthugsincoming, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry I didn't see this yesterday. You didn't do anything wrong, this is a very good talk page post. If you want my attention specifically, you can ping me by typing {{u|HLHJ}}, or posting on my talk page, linked from my signature at the end of this post (I pinged you in the first sentence here). The "View history" link at the top of the page will show you the usernames of recent editors. This is in no way necessary, though.

I think you're right. I was never that enthused for "thick-walled" vs. "thin-walled", but I found existing terms even more problematic, mostly for reasons you mention. To consider each possibility in turn:

1. That is a very solid WP:MEDRS source, but I agree that this does not seem to be common usage. Also, while marketing diagrams show bizarrely cavernous vaginas with cups at the outside end, it seems from recent in-vivo imaging that that vaginal cups sit around the cervix, while cervical cups are "aligned along the long axis of the vagina" (to use the description of this paper). That's... unintuitive. Also, since I can't reliably *type* the difference between a cervical cup and a cervical cap, I'm not sure I should expect readers to read it.
2. I strongly agree that succinct visual-spatial terms are probably better. I like "bell-shaped". The flowers we call "bell-shaped" are if anything more varied in form than these menstrual cups, and yet the term is useful and intuitive. Cast bells are also thick-walled and of variable cross-sectional profile, like the menstrual cups. I'm not quite so keen on "disc-shaped", because I think of a disk as having circular symmetry and bilateral symmetry thru the plane that is a circle, not as being something that is convex on one side and concave on the other (some contraceptive diaphragms were once disc-shaped, probably because dipping a hoop in latex is an easy manufacturing process). I thought "disc-shaped" cups were mostly more bowl-shaped, unless squished flat. The range of diameters overlaps with bell-shaped cups, though, and some of the bells are fairly shallow and round-bottomed and arguably more bowl-shaped than the "bowl-shaped" cups. "Dish" is a doublet of "dish"; I considered "dish-shaped". But an increasing number of these menstrual cups have asymmetrical rims and removal dimples, which makes them very non- disc- or bowl- or dish-shaped, and I wanted a future-proof term.
3. I didn't use the cup/disc distinction for exactly the reason you say, and because health authorities tend to call both "cups". Plus I'd have to either split this article in two, or invent a new descriptive term for both shapes of thingamajigs, and call this article something silly like "elastomeric vaginal menstruum-catching vessels".

It seems to me that the main difference is that the bell-shaped cups do not squish compliantly in-vivo, while the membrane-on-a-hoop ones do, so that they don't create a significant empty void (I will be adding this info soon). These compliant cups meet the mechanical-engineering and anatomical definitions of wiktionary:diaphragm#English, but confusion with contraceptive diaphragms would be bad, and the definition of wiktionary:membrane#English fits pretty well, too. Would "bell cup" and "membrane cup" cover the distinction, and be succinct and visual-spatial terms? They are less directly descriptive than wall thickness, but I think sacrificing that for readability and clarity is a good trade-off.

Please let me know if anything I've said is off-base, incomprehensible, or plain wrong. HLHJ (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HLHJ, thank you for the welcome and for explaining all of this!

To comment on your points:

1. The actual placement is good to know. Thanks for sharing! I agree that vaginal and cervical cup isn't the best option, especially given the potential for confusion with cervical caps.
2. Coming back to this, I agree with you that bell-shaped works better than other options I'd listed here for thick-walled cups. I hear your points about thin-walled cups not being perfectly disc, dish, or bowl-shaped. I think it would be okay to go with a term that's not perfectly accurate, provided there are visual aids to show the actual shape. In the first point, the inaccuracy is misleading about the actual functionality of the device, but I think that's not the case here.
3. Definitely, the disc/cup distinction is confusing. I think integrating both types of cups throughout the article made it better, and I get why you made the change.

The term diaphragm came up many times in papers, but I agree that the potential for confusion with the contraceptive method makes it a bad option. I agree that bell-shaped works, but I still don't feel settled with membrane cup. It's a good descriptor for what it is, but my hesitation is that it's not a term I've seen used before. I'm still reading through Wikipedia policy pages to understand how editing works and what the voice of Wikipedia is. I had no clue there was this much structure behind the scenes, but it makes sense for such a huge project! My impression at this point is that a Wikipedia article is supposed be an overview of a subject that represents widely held opinions or agreed upon facts by reputable sources. Introducing a new term feels like divorcing this article in some ways from its sources. Hopefully, I wrote that in a way that makes sense. I don't fully understand the policies yet, so I could be absolutely off base here, but that's my current feeling. I don't know where to go from here because cervical cup and diaphragm-shaped could both be confused with contraceptive devices, and disc is a somewhat inaccurate term used by some manufacturers and online articles but only rarely by academic and regulatory sources. Is there a way we could ask someone for a third opinion on this?

Thanks again for the welcome and for sharing your thoughts on this! Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments on the integration! It's still very much a work in progress, I fear.

You are quite right about introducing new terms. The latitude for novel terms used within an article is greater than for article titles, but it's still to be avoided where possible. Even in article titles, it's permissible to use descriptive terms where the common-use terms are likely to cause confusion (or non-existent). I tend to agree that "bell cup" and "membrane cup" are both prehaps insufficiently descriptive.

Terms in common use are actually preferred to terms used by academics, provided they are conceptually clear, since an encyclopedia is aimed at people seeking an introduction to a subject (with a generl adversion to marketing terms designed to give a misleading impression). I'm a lot happier with "menstrual disc" than "disc-shaped cup", because the former is found in sources and I don't recall seeing the latter, and because the item isn't disk-shaped (I have used "disc" in the article, as a common term). I've been trying to add descriptive alt-texts to all the images that need them, but it's common in low-bandwidth settings for Wikipedia to be read without images, even by fully-sighted people (I've done it myself), and they usually don't see the alt-texts. So if we went with an inaccurate description, I think we'd have to be very explicit about it in the main text. A descriptive term that is inaccurate or misleading is obviously an inferior choice.

The Gynaeseal called itself as a "diaphragm tampon" in the literature; do you have any other literature terms we could go through? "Contraceptive disc" is a term in use, and, I think, translated into some other languages; "vaginal diaphragm contraceptive" (which is more description than name) is also used.

How about describing their placement, and saying "transverse cup" and "longitudinal cup"? This description is solidly supported by sources. A less-Latinate version would be "crossways" and "longways", or "crosswise" and "lengthwise", etc.. Or "cross-vaginal" and "along-vagina". "cis cup" and "trans cup" would be even more Latinate, but, I think, liable to cause confusion. Perpendicular/subparallel? Thwartwise and alongwise would probably sound odd to everyone but seafolk.

There are lots of ways we can ask for a third opinion on this, and the most obvious formal one is an RfC. But we're culturally expected to discuss an issue throughly first and explore all the options; an RfC is more what you do when you've done all that and failed, as it demands a lot of other editors' time. It's usually actually done when the parties involved are in such vehement disagreement that they are never going to agree to anything; I hope I'm not coming across as that hostile, or that attached to any particular resolution (I mean, we have to say something; I'm for whatever works best, and I'm not sure what would work best). I could ask some folks informally, and I will if you like. There's a good chance that anyone really interested already has this talk page on their watchlist, and will probably chime in if they see us agreeing on something they strongly oppose.

(I don't want to mislead you; I should make it clear that actual policy, hard rules, is that anyone may call an RfC on anything at any time. In practice, I can only recall my requesting an RfC on terminology a couple times; once it was some PR folk who wanted a fruit cultivar article named with their brandname, so they weren't very amenable to discussion, and the other time involved PR folk for Phillip Morris, who are very well-trained but with whom I have some fundamental disagreements about public health. This is not that! That's why I'm reluctant.)

I've been editing the page some more, and while I've still been using "thick-walled" and "thin-walled", that's just for consistency. I'm not trying to prejudice the discussion or be quarrelsome; I'm happy to change the terms in the article. I'm holding off because changing it repeatedly would be really annoying, and I don't want to ride roughshod over you and your excellent points. HLHJ (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of this background information! If menstrual disc is a term you feel isn't too misleading, I think that's a good option given its common usage. I haven't seen a thick-walled cup referred to as a menstrual disc, just the other way around with thin-walled cups labelled as menstrual cups. Regardless of the term used, it would probably be good to include a note somewhere that thin-walled cups are sometimes labelled simply as menstrual cups in studies, regulations, and product packaging.

When combing through my mental list of terms, I also remembered diaphragm tampon. That one I found confusing because when I read it I imagined disposable tampon material in the shape of a diaphragm, which was clearly not the reality. My guess is that tampon used to be understood as a more general term in the 1980s but now has a more specific meaning in common use. Unfortunately, I don't remember any terms besides disc, cup, cervical cup, and diaphragm tampon.

Crosswise and lengthwise are definitely descriptive terms that I think most people would understand. I have the same concern about that as with membrane cup, which is just that it's not commonly used. If it comes to that, it sounds like, from your description, we can invent a term. If possible, I'd still prefer to go with a somewhat common term so that people can more directly connect what they learn from this article to other sources if they use it as a jumping-off point.

Asking someone informally for a third opinion was what I meant, although it's good to know there's a formal process available. You're not coming across as hostile, so I'm happy to continue just the two of us if you prefer.

Looking back through our discussion, it seems like bell-shaped cup and menstrual disc are terms neither of us are strongly opposed to. Is that a correct read? If so, I think it would be reasonable to go with those terms.

Until this topic comes to a conclusion, it makes sense to keep using thin/thick-walled while updating. Any changes can wait until an agreement is reached. Ghosthugsincoming (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction drawn on Wikipedia between common terms, what a thing is most commonly called, and descriptive terms, which are possibly-novel descriptions, and should be clear, unambiguous, and not confusing. So while we can invent terms, they have to be descriptive, and significantly clearer than any common terms (this is why I didn't like "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and disc-shaped cups" because while it is less awkward, and while I don't object to descriptive terms, the descriptive term is inaccurate). If there are multiple common terms, we are allower to pick a rarer but clearer or more accurate one as the main term used in the article. Quite regardless, articles give all the common terms for their topic, generally even awful and offensive ones, in bold black text, usually in the lede, and explain what they all mean (in this article, I split that off into the "terminology" section, because it was getting long).

So when you say "Regardless of the term used, it would probably be good to include a note somewhere that thin-walled cups are sometimes labelled simply as menstrual cups in studies, regulations, and product packaging", I'm completely in agreement, that is indeed the usual proceedure. And it wasn't until I was writing this that I realized I hadn't done that. I really thought I had, and I assumed you hadn't seen it, which was unwarranted. I'm sorry. I've fixed now.

I don't really like "diaphragm tampon" either. Are you suggesting that we say something like "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and menstrual discs"? I find that a tad awkward; it seems to imply that menstrual discs both are and are not cups. Would you be okay with picking a rarer term which is in use? There are some of those.

"Menstrual cups come in two types, menstrual bells and menstrual discs" is a less-confusing ontology. The term "menstrual bell" is rare, but it is in use.[1]

Simple English wikipedia also has "ring". This actually seems pretty spatial and descriptive and distinct; it really is a ring with a bag hanging off it, not a bell shape with (usually) a thicker rim. It's a bit off the natural use of "ring", but nowhere near as far as "disc", and it seems fairly future-proof. "Menstrual ring" does seem to be used a bit, too: A “menstrual ring” is yet another way to say “menstrual disc”.[2]

If you were okay with "ring" as a description, we'd have "Menstrual cups come in two types, bell-shaped cups and ring-shaped cups", or, using two rare terms instead of a description, "Menstrual cups come in two types, menstrual bells and menstrual rings".

Going back to your original post, you said "I find thin-walled cup and thick-walled cup confusing as they're lengthy, easy to mix up terms that I didn't come across in any of the research I did". I'm not sure whether this implies that you would not be okay with any term that isn't a common term, but I'm fairly sure it means that you dislike long and confusing, and I have to agree with you on that . Reordering your three points: (1) not a common term, (2) long and (3) confusing, I'll go over each.

1. I looked at the common terms for these items, and came to the conclusion that "menstrual cup" was the best common-term name for the entire article, but there weren't any unconfusing common-name terms for the two subtypes. I therefore came up with some descriptive terms, and went with that. So we completely agree that "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" are not common terms. I think we might disagree a bit over how okay it is to use descriptive terms. I also agree with your other two points that the descriptive terms I picked have problems, so on to those.
2. "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" are indeed long. Calling them "thick cups" and "thin cups" would help with length, and not be much less descriptive.
3. I can see that "thick-walled" and "thin-walled" being easy to confuse; most of the letters are the same. Shortening helps, but they still share most of their letters.

"Menstrual cups come in two types, divided by wall thickness: thick cups and thin cups" is a purely-descriptive possibility. It somewhat ameliorates two of your concerns, but it still uses descriptive terms. And, of course, we have the purely-descriptive "Menstrual cups come in two types, distinguished by the way they are placed in the vagina: crosswise and lengthwise" (or "crosswise cups and lengthwise cups").

I'm not quite sure where all my preferences lie here. There might also be other rarer common terms I don't know. I'm glad I'm not coming across as hostile, it's easy to do by accident in text-only communications. HLHJ (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]