Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254023›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.

L M Lopez, D A Grimes, M F Gallo, K F Schulz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. High levels of women's satisfaction and compliance with transdermal contraception: results from a European multinational, 6-month study.Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology · 2011
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Contraceptive Counseling for the Transgender Patient Assigned Female at Birth.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Contraception and the obese woman.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2013
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L M LopezFamily Health International, Clinical Research Department, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. llopez@fhi.org
D A Grimes
M F Gallo
K F Schulz
Family Health International 360 · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.

objectivesTo compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, compliance, and safety of the skin patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS for trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring. We contacted manufacturers and researchers to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing the skin patch or vaginal ring with a COC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the weighted mean difference was computed. MAIN

resultsWe found three trials of the skin patch and eight of the vaginal ring. Contraceptive effectiveness was similar for the patch or ring and the comparison COC. Patch users reported more compliant cycles than COC users; ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24) in two trials. One crossover ring trial had more noncompliance for the ring users. Satisfaction with method was higher for ring users than COC users in two studies. More patch users discontinued early than COC users: OR 1.58 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.99) and 1.45 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.90) in two trials. Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The ring trials generally showed similar discontinuation for ring and COC users. Compared to COC users, patch users were more likely to report breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Ring users reported less nausea, irritability, and depression than COC users in single trials. However, ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea. Bleeding problems were generally similar or less common for the ring versus COC. AUTHORS'

conclusionsEffectiveness rates were similar for the methods compared. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group. Compared to COC users, patch users had more side effects. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge. The patch could lead to more discontinuation while the vaginal ring showed little difference. High losses to follow up can affect the validity of the results.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Devices, FemaleDrug ImplantsConsumer BehaviorContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, Oral, CombinedFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, Oral, CombinedDrug Implants

Identifiers

PMID18254023
OpenAlexW4244734160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.