Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2009
Increased access to emergency contraception: why it may fail.
Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (full review).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Twelve-month follow-up of advance provision of emergency contraception among teenage girls in Sweden-a randomized controlled trial.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2013Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo explore why increased access to emergency contraception (EC) failed to reduce pregnancies in a recent randomized controlled trial.
methodsWe used multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors for unintended pregnancy using data from a trial involving sexually active women (n = 1490, aged 14-24 years) randomly assigned to either increased access or standard access to EC. We used predictive modeling to generate estimated pregnancy risk scores for each participant. We then examined EC use among women at low or high baseline risk of pregnancy.
resultsGravidity, recent history of unprotected sex (within 14 days of enrollment to study) and lower aversion to pregnancy predicted unintended pregnancy. Women in the increased access group were more likely than women in the standard access group to use EC repeatedly. This difference was significantly stronger (P = 0.03) among low risk women than high risk women [Relative risk (RR) 10.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.5-15.4 and RR 5.5, 95% CI 3.8-7.9, respectively].
conclusionsIncreased access to EC had a greater impact on women who were at lower baseline risk of pregnancy. This may explain in part why increased access to EC has had no measurable benefit in clinical trials.
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.