SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Progestin-only pills for contraception.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Effect of protease inhibitors on steady-state pharmacokinetics of oral norethindrone contraception in HIV-infected women.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014Trial
- Impact of Estetrol Combined with Drospirenone on Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis in Patients with Endometriosis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- Monitoring Menstrual Health in Footballers: Considerations for Tracking Menstrual and Hormonal Contraceptive Cycles in the Field to Support Performance.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Comment on: Toward an optimal contraception dosing strategy.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Postpartum contraception in adolescents: data from a single tertiary clinic in southeast of Turkey.Global journal of health science · 2014Article
- Progestin-only contraceptive pill use among women in the United States.Contraception · 2012Article
- Contraindications to progestin-only oral contraceptive pills among reproductive-aged women.Contraception · 2012Article
- Review and management of drug interactions with boceprevir and telaprevir.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2012Review
- Oral contraceptives in migraine therapy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of a new progestin-only oral contraceptive in Europe has renewed interest in this class of oral contraceptives. Unlike the more widely used combined oral contraceptives containing an estrogen plus progestin, these pills contain only a progestin (progestogen) and are taken without interruption. How these pills compare to others in their class or to combined oral contraceptives is not clear.
objectivesThis review examined randomized controlled trials of progestin-only pills for differences in efficacy, acceptability, and continuation rates. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, LILACS, and EMBASE for studies of progestin-only pills. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials in any language that included progestin-only pills for contraception. We incorporated any comparison with a progestin-only pill; this could include different doses, other progestin-only pills, combined oral contraceptives, or other contraceptives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The first author abstracted the data and entered the information into RevMan 5. Another author performed a second, independent data abstraction to verify the initial data entry. Because of disparate exposures, we were not able to combine studies in meta-analysis. MAIN
resultsSix trials met the inclusion criteria. In the trial comparing the desogestrel versus levonorgestrel progestin-only pill, desogestrel was not associated with a significantly lower risk of accidental pregnancy; the rate ratio was 0.27 (95% CI 0.06 to 1.19). However, the desogestrel progestin-only pill caused more bleeding problems, although this difference was not statistically significant. The trial comparing low-dose mifepristone versus a levonorgestrel progestin-only pill found similar pregnancy rates. In the trial comparing ethynodiol diacetate versus a combined oral contraceptive, irregular cycles occurred in all women assigned to the progestin-only pill (odds ratio 135.96; 95% CI 7.61 to 2421.02). In a trial comparing two progestin-only and two combined oral contraceptives, the progestin-only pill containing levonorgestrel 30 mug had higher efficacy than did the pill containing norethisterone 350 mug. An early trial found megestrol acetate inferior to other progestin-only pills in terms of efficacy. A study of the timing of pill initiation after birth found no important differences, but high losses to follow up undermined the trial. AUTHORS'
conclusionsEvidence is insufficient to compare progestin-only pills to each other or to combined oral contraceptives.
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.