Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19209272›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2008

Evaluation of extended and continuous use oral contraceptives.

Kristen Page Wright, Julia V Johnson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Women Exposed to High Altitude.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kristen Page WrightUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine and Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Women's Health Care Services, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Burlington, VT USA.
Julia V Johnson
Allen Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral contraceptives are classically given in a cyclic manner with 21 days of active pills followed by 7 days of placebo. In the past 4 years, new oral contraceptives have been introduced which either shorten the placebo time, lengthen the active pills (extended cycle), or provide active pills every day (continuous). These concepts are not new; extended and continuous pills were first studied in the 1960s and 1970s and have been provided in an off-label manner by gynecologists to treat menstrual disorders, such as menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea, and gynecologic disorders, such as endometriosis. Now that extended and continuous combined oral contraceptives are available for all patients, it is critical for providers to understand the physiology, dosing, side effects, and benefits of this form of oral contraceptive. This article reviews the history and the potential uses of the new continuous combined oral contraceptive.

Indexed as

administrationadverse effectsdosagemenstrual disturbancesoral contraceptives

Identifiers

PMID19209272
PMCPMC2621397
OpenAlexW1934960365

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.