ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2008
Accuracy of self-screening for contraindications to combined oral contraceptive use.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Should oral contraceptive pills be available without a prescription? A systematic review of over-the-counter and pharmacy access availability.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- Computer-assisted provision of hormonal contraception in acute care settings.Contraception · 2013Trial
- Over-the-counter access to combined oral contraceptives for individuals with hypertension: an expert review.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Simulation of Contraceptive Access for Adolescents and Young Adults Using a Pharmacist-Staffed e-Platform: Development, Usability, and Pilot Testing Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Hormonal Therapies for Acne: A Comprehensive Update for Dermatologists.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
- A qualitative exploration of the over-the-counter availability of oral contraceptive pills in Australia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Exploring Contraceptive Experiences of Abortion-Fund Clients in the Rocky Mountain Region of the United States from a Reproductive Justice Lens.Women's reproductive health (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
- Oral Contraceptive Pills and Hypertension: A Review of Current Evidence and Recommendations.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2023Review
- Effects and Proposed Countermeasures of Abortion Bans and Restrictions on People With Uteruses and Society.Cureus · 2022Article
- Reclassifying contraceptives as over-the-counter medicines to improve access.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022Review
- Inhibiting Kiss1 Neurons With Kappa Opioid Receptor Agonists to Treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Vasomotor Symptoms.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Article
- Interest in Continued Use After Participation in a Study of Over-the-Counter Progestin-Only Pills in the United States.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Physicians' Opinion Regarding Extended Access to Hormonal Contraception in Switzerland.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Adolescents' and Young Adults' Ability to Self-Screen for Contraindications to Hormonal Contraception and the Role of Chronic Illness.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021Article
- Assessing the Pregnancy Protective Impact of Scheduled Nonadherence to a Novel Progestin-Only Pill: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Crossover Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Contraindications to Hormonal Contraception Among Postpartum Women in Texas.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Prescription Requirements and Patient Autonomy: Considering an Over-the-Counter Default.The Hastings Center report · 2020Article
- "Online" and "at-home" versus traditional models of health care: enhancing access or impeding optimal therapeutics?Fertility and sterility · 2020Article
- Long-Lasting, Patient-Controlled, Procedure-Free Contraception: A Review of Annovera with a Pharmacist Perspective.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Association of Pharmacist Prescription With Dispensed Duration of Hormonal Contraception.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate how well a convenience sample of women from the general population could self-screen for contraindications to combined oral contraceptives using a medical checklist.
methodsWomen 18-49 years old (N=1,271) were recruited at two shopping malls and a flea market in El Paso, Texas, and asked first whether they thought birth control pills were medically safe for them. They then used a checklist to determine the presence of level 3 or 4 contraindications to combined oral contraceptives according to the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria. The women then were interviewed by a blinded nurse practitioner, who also measured blood pressure.
resultsThe sensitivity of the unaided self-screen to detect true contraindications was 56.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.7-60.6%), and specificity was 57.6% (95% CI 54.0-61.1%). The sensitivity of the checklist to detect true contraindications was 83.2% (95% CI 79.5-86.3%), and specificity was 88.8% (95% CI 86.3-90.9%). Using the checklist, 6.6% (95% CI 5.2-8.0%) of women incorrectly thought they were eligible for use when, in fact, they were contraindicated, largely because of unrecognized hypertension. Seven percent (95% CI 5.4-8.2%) of women incorrectly thought they were contraindicated when they truly were not, primarily because of misclassification of migraine headaches. In regression analysis, younger women, more educated women, and Spanish speakers were significantly more likely to correctly self-screen (P<.05).
conclusionSelf-screening for contraindications to oral contraceptives using a medical checklist is relatively accurate. Unaided screening is inaccurate and reflects common misperceptions about the safety of oral contraceptives. Over-the-counter provision of this method likely would be safe, especially for younger women and if independent blood pressure screening were encouraged.
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.