ArticleContraception2012
Contraindications to progestin-only oral contraceptive pills among reproductive-aged women.
Article in Contraception, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-assisted provision of hormonal contraception in acute care settings.Contraception · 2013Trial
- Over-the-counter access to combined oral contraceptives for individuals with hypertension: an expert review.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Interest in Continued Use After Participation in a Study of Over-the-Counter Progestin-Only Pills in the United States.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Assessing the Pregnancy Protective Impact of Scheduled Nonadherence to a Novel Progestin-Only Pill: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Crossover Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Contraindications to Hormonal Contraception Among Postpartum Women in Texas.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Current Issues and Options for Hormonal Contraception in Adolescents and Young Adult Women With Sickle Cell Disease: An Update for Health Care Professionals.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProgestin-only oral contraceptive pills (POPs) have fewer contraindications to use compared to combined pills. However, the overall prevalence of contraindications to POPs among reproductive-aged women has not been assessed. STUDY
designWe collected information on contraindications to POPs in two studies: (1) the Self-Screening Study, a sample of 1267 reproductive-aged women in the general population in El Paso, TX, and (2) the Prospective Study of OC Users, a sample of current oral contraceptive (OC) users who obtained their pills in El Paso clinics (n=532) or over the counter (OTC) in Mexican pharmacies (n=514). In the Self-Screening Study, we also compared women's self-assessment of contraindications using a checklist to a clinician's evaluation.
resultsOnly 1.6% of women in the Self-Screening Study were identified as having at least one contraindication to POPs. The sensitivity of the checklist for identifying women with at least one contraindication was 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 50.6%-90.4%], and the specificity was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.8%-99.7%). In total, 0.6% of women in the Prospective Study of OC Users reported having any contraindication to POPs. There were no significant differences between clinic and OTC users.
conclusionThe prevalence of contraindications to POPs was very low in these samples. POPs may be the best choice for the first OTC oral contraceptive in the United States.
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.