Talk:False pregnancy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nghi B Le, T.duong462, E. Huang, UCSF, Hlee11. Peer reviewers: L. Liu, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Strinh24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can men experience the psychological symptoms of false pregnancy?

can men experience the psychological symptoms of false pregnancy? --81.136.173.34 17:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the external links says this:

"Flanders Dunbar defined pseudocyesis in 1938 as "a condition in which a woman firmly believes herself to be pregnant and develops objective pregnancy signs in the absence of pregnancy."[sup.]1 Although pseudocyesis is occasionally reported in men as well as in women, this definition holds true today."

70.128.87.110 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from clinical experience, the only example of this I have seen was a pre-operation transexual who claimed pregnancy. He/she fled the office when my colleague went to do a vaginal exam and discovered a penis. Whether this was pseudocyesis or feigned pregnancy was not clear. Laplacian54 (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was move 199.125.109.58 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to rename this page "False pregnancy". Pseudocyesis is the term used in humans and clinically it is rare and obscure. I believe it deserves space on the page (or maybe even a different page), but pseudopregnancy in domestic animals is far more common and universally important. Pseudopregnancy is seen in research and clinical veterinary medicine all the time. "False pregnancy" would cover both of these terms. Unless there is a Wikipedia policy that the articles must be anthropocentric (which there might be, I really don't know), there is seriously no reason for pseudocyesis to overshadow pseudopregnancy in this article.

As it stands, this article makes false pregnancy seem like a psychological problem, which is not always true in humans, and never true in animals. I especially feel that the "in popular culture" trivia section is inappropriate. This article needs to be completely remade from a scientific standpoint, leading with veterinary pseudopregnancy and ending with human pseudocyesis. If there are no objections to this, I will continue to edit the page from this angle and begin including references. I just don't want to spend time on it if someone is going to start reverting my edits. If there are no objections in a week I will begin editing it over time. Please also comment if you agree with this. Thanks Laplacian54 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Laplacian54

I have begun to edit the page, just cleaning up what we have a little and consolidating some stuff. I am not an expert at editing Wikipedia articles for style, so someone feel free to make it better. However, please do not change the content unless you are an expert in this field or have conducted significant research prior to doing so. Laplacian54 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Laplacian54

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

false pseudocyesis (maybe)

I'm not sure if the paragraph about mice belongs. This article treats pseudocyesis as a natural condition or disorder, but the mice are heavily manipulated in a laboratory. Also, it's part of the artificial insemination process, intended to impregnate the mouse with a real embryo.

Clarification is welcome!

--Redshift9 14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation in a laboratory is part and parcel of creating an animal model of a disease. Basically, to study the disease you need a reliable way to induce the disease in some animal. The resultant model obviously can't mimic the natural condition exactly, and there in lies the limitations of animal research.74.79.178.182 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, and I first I thought it just was off-topic, but then I realized that this posting is just from someone who significantly misunderstands pseudopregnancy in mice. The model induced in the laboratory is exactly the "natural condition" in mice. When a female is bred by an infertile male, she becomes pseudopregnant whether she is wild or in the laboratory. The main use of pseudopregnancy in mice is not to study pseudocyesis in humans. It is used to study topics related to pregnancy and hormones.

Once in a GREAT while a woman will actually come in and claim she is 7 months pregnant, yet on ultrasound have nothing. We see it as just a bizarre phenomenon, and sometimes with true pseudocyesis a person will have pregnancy-type hormone levels, but a lot of the time it's just someone with mental problems. Seriously, pseudocyesis is interesting but not nearly as significant as pseudopregnancy in other animals. 69.137.21.174 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Laplacian54

I must strongly disagree, since I would argue that the number 1 reason people are reading this page is to learn about pseudopregnancy in mice.

--Laplacian54 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i just want you to know, i came to this page to try to figure out if am suffering from pseudocyesis. i was not helped by the article though, because i am not mental, it is too early to take a test and i have two kids already, also i'd be excited if i was pregnant or not. but i am feeling things as i did with my other two. so therefore you might just possibly be having other women out there coming to this page for the same type of reasons- not to find out about mice or other animals. i believe touching base is interesting- but a new page should be dedicated to that information ( with a link from this page). User:~HV~ 12:02 August 24,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisValentine (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I second the above comment. I have just had an abnormal period and breast changes, but I'm not pregnant (unless its an immaculate conception!). I sought out this page because I wanted a description of symptoms to help me judge whether or not my abnormal menstruation combined with milk duct activity is anything I should be concerned about. The psychology is good to have but it needs to be separate from physiological aspects. 121.212.21.50 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Other Names

I removed wind in the bowels from the list of terms for pseudocyesis. I think other more frequent editors of this article might be well served to remove many of the other names from the opening paragraph. I am sure that there are many, often slang, terms for false pregnancies. That doesn't mean that this article should open with a list of more than a dozen of them -- most of which are not commoly used. —mako๛ 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. 69.137.21.174 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Laplacian54

related article

Just wanted to make sure that editors of this article were aware of simulated pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on Testing

In the section on testing, the basis for an ordinary HCG pregnancy test is described, but there is no indication of how this relates to false pregnancy. Presumably, in a false pregnancy, such a test would not give a positive result? This needs to be stated explicitly (if it is true). 2.27.158.206 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition

This news story has happened [1]. Apparently, a Brazilian woman went into labour, and underwent a C-section. The doctors at her hospital later claimed that she had a "phantom pregnancy", including detection of a fetus and fetal heartbeats. Depending on the outcome, if it wasn't real, these details should be added. --Auric talk 15:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dated information

I'm not seeing statics on this topic from within the past 5 years. Articles on the topic refer to articles published in the 1980s or even a book published in 1937. AdroitInfoHunter (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Additions

Hello Wikipedians,

As this page is relatively sparse, I would like to add to its history section. I found a few sources that detail the history of false pregnancy beginning in the 17th century.

Additionally, I would like to conclude some modern examples of false pregnancy in which physicians were fooled by a woman's presentation during what appeared like true labor.

I plan to finalize these additions in the next hours. I hope you'll take the time to review them!

Sejohnson1 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 5 Proposed Edits

1). Add scientific/official medical term "pseudocyesis" in parentheses after "False Pregnancy" title on article 2). Expand intro section and add reliable citations 3). Add info/expand sections on "signs and symptoms," "cause," "treatment," and "epidemiology" (if possible, add applicable graphic for "epidemiology" section). Add needed citations for "epidemiology" section 4). Remove unreliable citations such as those from ABC.com and New York Times and replace those with more reliable sources such as journal-published systematic/meta-reviews 5). Perform general copyedits/factchecks on entire article E. Huang, UCSF (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Some notes. There are three recent secondary reviews already cited in the article: Azizi, Tarin and Seeman—Please use them rather than dated or inferior sources. They contain a wealth of information that has not yet been added to the article, while I have had to remove a lot of dated and inaccurate info from poor sources. For example, the article has a glaring lack of information about the associated mental health and psychiatric diagnoses—information mentioned in all three reviews. Further, the New York Times and ABC News sources are adequate for what they are citing, in Society and culture, where MEDRS is relaxed— they do not need to be removed. Leads do not need to be cited, they are supposed to summarize text already in the body of the article, so focus on adding cited info to the body, not the lead. Please watch out for overuse of words like “also” (which is almost always redundant). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking good! The most glaring issue now is the lack of wikilinks; it would be good to run through and link the first occurrence of all technical terms. But, see WP:OVERLINK for what to avoid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Two articles just added (Bera and Gogia) are specifically about delusional pregnancy rather than false pregnancy, and the distinction must be made; the terms are sometimes used interchangeable, and the distinction is blurred, but we should not add text as if it is about false pregnancy when the authors clearly distinguish the two in these articles. I am in the process of adjusting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that everything is sorted into the right section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes) it is apparent that the Signs and symptoms section is weak. Wikilinking is also deficient, although please take care not to WP:OVERLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 6 Peer Review

General thoughts: We believe the information in the article is presented well and researched extensively, as well as achieving the goals set in the Talk section. It was nice to see all the factors that were considered, from social, cultural, and psychological factors. The formatting reflects recommendations from the Wikipedia Styling Guide.

Proposed revisions:

• Consistency between use of terms "false pregnancy" and "pseudocyesis". We feel using pseudocyesis throughout the article may be considered medical jargon.
• The cross-sectional study under the epidemiology section seems too specific and we feel doesn't have as strong level of evidence (primary literature and older study published in 2008 in Nigerian Journal of Medicine) to warrant inclusion in the Wiki article.
• Under Treatment, saying ultrasound is used as treatment doesn't sound appropriate, maybe use the word "resolved"?
• Lots of instances of medical jargon. Galactorrhea and amenorrhea should be changed to lay-language (i.e. amenorrhea -> missed period), the last sentence under treatment is very medical-term heavy. General cases like that.
• More internal hyperlinks to wiki pages (ie the hormones listed in the last sentence of S&S)
• Citations needed for signs and symptoms of false pregnancy.
• Edit citations to include name of month and year rather than numerical date
• The last sentence under "Signs and Symptoms" cites two case reports (citations 8 and 10) published before 2000, which isn't representative of the statement being made

L. Liu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Jlee747 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Strinh24 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fvillegas, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

COPYVIO

Here, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

I emailed the author of the source  Done

1. False_pregnancy#Causes_and_mechanism
   1. I emailed Elyasi, Azizi's corresponding author on 26 August. They may shed light on the following.
   2. An active ectopic pregnancy is not a false pregnancy, it is an abnormal and dangerous pregnancy and would generally have a positive pregnancy test. However, a past ectopic pregnancy, as a form of misscarriage, could potentially be associated with the subsequent development of a false pregnancy as can a miscarriage.
   3. The source is correctly quoted but the source is misleading as to temporal and biologic timing: "…central nervous tumors, ovarian cysts, uterine fibroids, ectopic pregnancies" The first three are concurrent, but ectopic pregnancy, as a form of miscarriage, is in the past unless they mean that an ectopic might be misdiagnosed as a false pregnancy in which case it is not causative but a misdiagnosis and a potential catastrophy.
   4. Although correctly quoted in Wikipedia, the source's two primary references do not contain a discuss of ectopic pregnancy. This is an example of a secondary source inventing their information and claiming a source.
   5. I found a non-PubMed nursing journal that discussed miscarriage, but not ectopic, as a cause.
   6. There is a 1937 text book in the library that might discuss this.
   7. Other than the Azziz 2017 PMC5894469 article which misquotes its sources, I do not find another source. This in a minor academic point as, clinically, ectopic pegnancies do not look, sound, or act like false pregnancies. 03:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Edited Memdmarti (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following have been  Done

1. False_pregnancy lede
   1. Conflates diagnosis and treatment: "Ultrasound can be used to rule out false pregnancy, although pharmacotherapy is sometimes needed.[2]"
   2. From ref 2: "Psychiatric procedures that can be used in these patients include supportive, cognitive, behavioral and psychoanalytical psychotherapy that focuses on problem-solving. A combination of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy with antidepressants or antipsychotics, hormonal therapy, and uterine curettage is effective in almost all or all patients"
   3. Consider, "Examination, ultrasound, and pregnancy tests can be used to rule out false pregnancy. Psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy with antidepressants or antipsychotics, hormonal therapy, and uterine curettage are sometimes needed as treatment.[2]"
   4. Ref 2 Azizi M, Elyasi F (September 2017). "Biopsychosocial view to pseudocyesis: A narrative review". International Journal of Reproductive Biomedicine (Review). 15 (9): 535–542. PMC 5894469. PMID 29662961. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894469/
2. False_pregnancy#Classification
   1. Misquote: "it is listed as "not elsewhere classified", meaning it is different than other somatic disorders formerly known as conversion disorders.[1]"
   2. From ref 1: "The fact that it is included in a Not Elsewhere Classified section means that it is in a category by itself, different from other Somatic symptom disorders such as Functional Neurological Disorder (previously, Conversion Disorder)."
   3. Consider: "it is listed as "not elsewhere classified", meaning it is in a category by itself, different from other Somatic symptom disorders such as Functional Neurological Disorder (previously, Conversion Disorder).[1]"
   4. Ref 1: Tarín JJ, Hermenegildo C, García-Pérez MA, Cano A (May 2013). "Endocrinology and physiology of pseudocyesis". Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (Review). 11: 39. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-11-39. PMC 3674939. PMID 23672289. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674939/
3. False_pregnancy#Risk_factors
   1. Incomplete and reversed sequence: "... and hysterectomy (sterilization surgery)"
   2. From ref 2: "A grief reaction following tubal ligation, or hysterectomy" is in the paper twice and “sterilization surgery (hysterectomy)" once.
   3. Consider "...and tubal ligation, or hysterectomy"
   4. Ref 2 Azizi M, Elyasi F (September 2017). "Biopsychosocial view to pseudocyesis: A narrative review". International Journal of Reproductive Biomedicine (Review). 15 (9): 535–542. PMC 5894469. PMID 29662961. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894469/
4. False_pregnancy#Diagnosis
   1. Misquote and incorrect: "…, a urinalysis tests for hormones released in pregnancy, …"
   2. Ref 8 “A urinalysis will usually come back negative…” Note: A urinalysis usually tests for infection, diabetes, metabolic problems, etc. but not pregnancy. Also, an early pregnancy can be missed by all tests.
   3. Ref 8 “The same tests to confirm an actual pregnancy are done to diagnose a false pregnancy.”
   4. Consider "…, a blood pregnancy test (serum β-hCG) or urine pregnancy test, …”
   5. new ref: Li X, Zhang C, Li Y, Yuan J, Lu Q, Wang Y. Predictive values of the ratio of beta-human chorionic gonadotropin for failure of salpingostomy in ectopic pregnancy. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2019 Mar 1;12(3):901-908. PMID: 31933899; PMCID: PMC6945191.
   6. new ref: Ahmad MF, Abu MA, Chew KT, Sheng KL, Zakaria MA. A positive urine pregnancy test (UPT) with adnexal mass; ectopic pregnancy is not the ultimate diagnosis. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2018 Mar 20;34(2):/j/hmbci.2018.34.issue-2/hmbci-2018-0004/hmbci-2018-0004.xml. doi: 10.1515/hmbci-2018-0004. PMID: 29558344.
   7. keep previous ref 8: "Pseudocyesis: what exactly is a false pregnancy?". American Pregnancy Association. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
5. False_pregnancy#Management
   1. Management and diagnosis conflated "False pregnancy can be ruled out with ultrasound,[2] but additional interventions such as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are sometimes needed.[2]
   2. Delete the first phrase (it is duplicated earlier). Use "Additional interventions such as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are sometimes needed."[2]
6. False_pregnancy#Management
   1. Incomplete and misleading: "When underlying medical conditions are identified, surgical treatments may resolve the conditions along with the false pregnancy symptoms.[5]"
   2. As stated, it implies surgery can treat medical conditions.
   3. From Ref 5 “We found that 23 of 140 cases (16.4%) were potentially influenced by concomitant medical or surgical conditions including gallstones, abdominal tumors, hyperprolactinemia, constipation, a tubal cyst, and esophageal achalasia. Medical or surgical treatment was pursued in 15 of these 23 cases, followed by mitigation of the delusion in ten”
   4. Consider "When underlying medical or surgical conditions including gallstones, abdominal tumors, hyperprolactinemia, and constipation are identified, treatment may reduce the severity of the delusion.”
   5. Ref 5 Gogia S, Grieb A, Jang A, Gordon MR, Coverdale J (June 2020). "Medical considerations in delusion of pregnancy: a systematic review". J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol: 1–7. doi:10.1080/0167482X.2020.1779696. PMID 32597281.
7. False_pregnancy#Society_and_culture
   1. Incorrect quote of another Wikipedia page "Anna O, Sigmund Freud's most famous patient,   "
   2. Anna O was Josef Breuer's patient published in collaboration with Freud per Anna O.
   3. Consider: "Anna O, Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer's patient, " or add another reference

Memdmarti (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes  Done

Query: is "category" (DSM-5|category) OK or WP:synth? Memdmarti (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding what you are asking? Could you rephrase with a full statement and the cite supporting it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. This is a moot point after reading the source article again; it specifies DSM-5. Until then I thought that I added DSM-5 because the Conversion Disorder page clarifies DSM-5. Theoretical question: If I used the wikilink to DSM-5 because the Conversion Disorder page says DSM-5 rather than beause the source says that, is it WP:synth?Memdmarti (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you are inquiring about this proposed text? ... it is listed as "not elsewhere classified", meaning it is in a category by itself, different from other Somatic symptom disorders such as Functional Neurological Disorder (previously, Conversion Disorder). OK, we shouldn't use an "easter egg" (link a word to something other than what it is ... and then, we don't relink things already listed, take care with uppercase (these conditions don't use uppercase, unlike Alzheimer who was a person). So, if I am understanding you correctly, I changed the text to:

• In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), false pregnancy is a somatic symptom disorder; it is listed as "not elsewhere classified", meaning it is in a category by itself, different from other somatic symptom disorders (formerly known as conversion disorders) such as functional neurological symptom disorder.[ref name= Tarin2013/]

I am still not sure what you are asking about SYNTH. Everything we have here is mentioned in the source, so there is no SYNTH. SYNTH is when you combine info not from various sources to draw a conclusion not made by the sources, but everything we have here is in the source. Sorry, I am so confused about what you are asking ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying an "easter egg." Your change is good. Memdmarti (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Memdmarti, so on the lists above, only the ectopic pregnancy issue is outstanding? Private correspondence with the author won't be a lot of help here; can we find a new source and adjust the text accordingly? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia! Does Wikipedia have a WP:POV/WP:OR referee for logic conundrums? No matter what I do other than leaving what, in my POV, is a correctly cited incorrect statement from a reference, is POV or possibly OR.

1. Is using the primary source material for a secondary reference OR in Wikipedia? In academic peer-review, it is a responsibility.
2. Using only the Gogia2020 ref is reasonable but the Azizi2017 ref is removed because it is my POV that ectopic pregnancy in the Azizi2017 ref is incorrect and also the references cited by Azizi -- O'Grady (1989) and Tarin (2013) -- do not list ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is a dangerous pregnancy, not a false pregnancy. I have written Azizi's corresponding co-author and anticipate that, if they answer, they will likely agree or at least be more nuanced in their statement.
   1. About one in six false pregnancies is potentially influenced by concomitant medical or surgical conditions including gallstones, abdominal tumors, hyperprolactinaemia, constipation, tubal cysts, esophageal achalasia.
3. The following is correct, more comprehensive, and uses both references, but removes ectopic pregnancy from the Azizi2017 list as my POV is the same as above.
   1. About one in six false pregnancies is potentially influenced by concomitant medical or surgical conditions including gallstones, abdominal tumors, hyperprolactinaemia, constipation, tubal cysts, esophageal achalasia, uterine cancer, uterine fibroids, ovarian tumors, central nervous tumors, and ovarian cysts.
4. What do I do next?

References

@Memdmarti: Because something can be cited to a reliable source does not mean we are obligated to include it. Editor consensus comes in to play. We can decide to simply omit the mention of ectopic pregnancy. I would support that for all the reasons you mention. That could be a problem if other editors insist it remain because it is reliably sourced, and then you would have to get a third opinion, or produce alternate sources or hold an RFC or something similar. But you have already mentioned that other sources do not make this claim, so that is a good enough reason for leaving it out. The mention of it calls into question the quality of the source. Since this article was created by student editors, rather than topic experts, they may not have understood how off that text is, and my advice is to simply delete the mention of ectopic pregnancy, and if someone objects, then we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

Tangent: hyperprolactinaemia is UK English. Is that an issue in Wikipedia? / Memdmarti (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll look into that and explain on your talk page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Memdmarti (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am going to unwatch this article now, as the student editing seems to be finished, and I trust you can handle any new edits. Post to my talk if any help here is ever needed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I removed "done" from the section head. Memdmarti (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)