SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a skin patch or vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The skin patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.
objectivesTo compare the contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, adherence (compliance), and safety of the skin patch or the vaginal ring versus combination oral contraceptives (COCs). SEARCH STRATEGY: For trials of the contraceptive patch or the vaginal ring, we searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We contacted manufacturers and researchers to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing the skin patch or vaginal ring with a COC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference was computed. MAIN
resultsWe found 5 trials of the skin patch and 10 of the vaginal ring. Contraceptive effectiveness was similar for the patch or ring versus the comparison COC. More patch users discontinued early than COC users: ORs were 1.59 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.00), 1.56 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.06), and 2.57 (95% CI 0.99 to 6.64). Patch users also had more discontinuation due to adverse events. Compared to COC users, patch users reported more breast discomfort, dysmenorrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Patch users reported more compliant cycles than the COC users in two trials: ORs were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.29) and 2.76 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.24). The ring trials generally showed similar discontinuation for ring and COC users. Ring users reported less nausea, acne, irritability, and depression than COC users. Ring users had more vaginitis and leukorrhea but less vaginal dryness. Ring users had similar adherence to COC users in two trials but less adherence in one. Cycle control was generally similar for the patch and COC, and was similar or better for the ring versus COC. AUTHORS'
conclusionsEffectiveness was similar for the methods compared. The patch could lead to more discontinuation while the vaginal ring showed little difference. The patch group had better compliance than the COC group but more side effects. Ring users generally had fewer adverse events than COC users but more vaginal irritation and discharge. High losses to follow up can affect the validity of the results.
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.