SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Immediate start of hormonal contraceptives for contraception.
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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate versus delayed postabortal insertion of contraceptive implant.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Progestin-only pills for contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Rates of pregnancy among levonorgestrel and copper intrauterine emergency contraception initiators: Implications for backup contraception recommendations.Contraception · 2021Trial
- Delayed start of estetrol drospirenone versus ethinyl estradiol gestodene for ovulation inhibition in a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care providers often tell women to wait until the next menses to begin hormonal contraception. The main intent is to avoid contraceptive use during an undetected pregnancy. An alternative is to start hormonal contraception immediately with back-up birth control for the first seven days. Immediate initiation was first introduced with combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and has expanded to other hormonal contraceptives. How immediate start compares to conventional menses-dependent start is unclear regarding effectiveness, continuation, and acceptability. The immediate-start approach may improve women's access to, and continuation of, hormonal contraception.
objectivesThis review examined randomized controlled trials of immediate-start hormonal contraception for differences in effectiveness, continuation, and acceptability. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for trials of immediate-start hormonal contraceptives. We contacted researchers to find other studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared immediate start to conventional start of hormonal contraception. Also included were trials that compared immediate start of different hormonal contraceptive methods with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. The Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. MAIN
resultsFive studies were included. Method discontinuation was similar between groups in all trials. Bleeding patterns and side effects were similar in trials that compared immediate with conventional start. In a study of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), immediate start of DMPA showed fewer pregnancies than a 'bridge' method before DMPA (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.84). Further, more women in the immediate-DMPA group were very satisfied versus those with a 'bridge' method (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77).A trial of two immediate-start methods showed the vaginal ring group had less prolonged bleeding (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) and less frequent bleeding (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.03) than COC users. The ring group also reported fewer side effects. For satisfaction, more immediate ring users were very satisfied than immediate COC users (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.59 to 5.22). AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found limited evidence that immediate start of hormonal contraception reduces unintended pregnancies or increases method continuation. However, the pregnancy rate was lower with immediate start of DMPA versus another method. Some differences were associated with contraceptive type rather than initiation method, that is, immediate ring versus immediate COC. More studies are needed of immediate versus conventional start of the same hormonal contraceptive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.