Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20223876›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study.

Philip C Hannaford, Lisa Iversen, Tatiana V Macfarlane, Alison M Elliott, Valerie Angus, Amanda J Lee

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Hormone therapy and melanoma in women.International journal of women's dermatology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Philip C HannafordCentre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Aberdeen AB25 2AY. p.hannaford@abdn.ac.uk
Lisa Iversen
Tatiana V Macfarlane
Alison M Elliott
Valerie Angus
Amanda J Lee

Funding

British Heart FoundationMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo see if the mortality risk among women who have used oral contraceptives differs from that of never users.

designProspective cohort study started in 1968 with mortality data supplied by participating general practitioners, National Health Service central registries, or both.

setting1400 general practices throughout the United Kingdom.

participants46 112 women observed for up to 39 years, resulting in 378 006 woman years of observation among never users of oral contraception and 819 175 among ever users.

main outcome measuresDirectly standardised adjusted relative risks between never and ever users for all cause and cause specific mortality.

results1747 deaths occurred in never users of oral contraception and 2864 in ever users. Compared with never users, ever users of oral contraception had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.93). They also had significantly lower rates of death from all cancers; large bowel/rectum, uterine body, and ovarian cancer; main gynaecological cancers combined; all circulatory disease; ischaemic heart disease; and all other diseases. They had higher rates of violent deaths. No association between overall mortality and duration of oral contraceptive use was observed, although some disease specific relations were apparent. An increased relative risk of death from any cause between ever users and never users was observed in women aged under 45 years who had stopped using oral contraceptives 5-9 years previously but not in those with more distant use. The estimated absolute reduction in all cause mortality among ever users of oral contraception was 52 per 100 000 woman years.

conclusionOral contraception was not associated with an increased long term risk of death in this large UK cohort; indeed, a net benefit was apparent. The balance of risks and benefits, however, may vary globally, depending on patterns of oral contraception usage and background risk of disease.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathAdultAgedContraceptionContraceptives, OralFemaleHumansMiddle AgedParityPregnancyProspective StudiesSmokingSocial ClassTime FactorsUnited KingdomYoung AdultContraceptives, Oral

Identifiers

PMID20223876
PMCPMC2837145

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.