SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 5 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 256 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Hormonal Contraceptive Use With Adverse Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Association between progestin-only contraceptive use and cardiometabolic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2018Pooled it
- Progestin-only contraception and thromboembolism: A systematic review.Contraception · 2016Pooled it
- Progestin and breast cancer risk: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of 48-Week Low-Dose Dienogest Treatment in Patients with Endometriosis-Associated Dysmenorrhea: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Trial.Advances in therapy · 2025Trial
- Estetrol-Drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: a clinical study of contraceptive efficacy, bleeding pattern and safety in Europe and Russia.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Trial
- [Russian eligibility criteria for prescription of menopausal hormone therapy to patients with cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Agreement document of RKO, ROAG, RAE, EAT, AFR, RNMOT, RAGG].Problemy endokrinologii · 2026Article
- Risk of venous thromboembolism in people with RA: a population-based study in the UK.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Sex Hormone Profiles in Patients With Torsades de Pointes Ventricular Tachycardia: A Clinical-Electrophysiological Translational Study.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Porto-spleno-mesenteric thrombosis secondary to medroxyprogesterone acetate as a treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Pregnancy and pulmonary artery hypertension: Management challenges.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Review
- Pregnancy in Women Receiving Maintenance Dialysis.Kidney medicine · 2025Review
- Central Retinal Vein Occlusion Associated With Progestin-Only Contraceptive Implant Use.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the Feasibility of a Bracketing Approach Utilizing Modeling for Development of Long-Acting Injectables for Regulatory Approval-A Case Study Using Levonorgestrel.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Estrogen, progestin, and beyond: thrombotic risk and contraceptive choices.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- Hormone-related thrombosis: duration of anticoagulation, risk of recurrence, and the role of hypercoagulability testing.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- Contraceptive Care in the Rheumatic Diseases: A Review.Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases · 2024Review
- Alignment of contraception use with the ACR reproductive health guidelines in women with systemic lupus erythematosus within the RISE registry.Lupus science & medicine · 2024Article
- Reversible female contraceptives: historical, current, and future perspectives†.Biology of reproduction · 2024Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with the use of progestin-only contraception and whether that risk differs with the mode of drug delivery (oral, intrauterine, or depot injection).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and case-control, cohort, and cross sectional studies with venous thromboembolic outcome for progestin-only contraception reported relative to a non-hormone comparator group. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and consensus for inclusion was reached after assessment by additional investigators.
resultsAmong the 2022 unique references identified by all searches, eight observational studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. A total of 147 women across all studies were diagnosed with a venous thromboembolic event while taking progestin-only contraception, and the summary measure for the adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic episode for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive was, based on the random effects model, 1.03 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.39). Subgroup analysis confirmed there was no association between venous thromboembolic risk and progestin-only pills (relative risk 0.90 (0.57 to 1.45)) or a progestin intrauterine device (0.61 (0.24 to 1.53)). The relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users of an injectable progestin versus non-users was 2.67 (1.29 to 5.53).
conclusionsPublished data assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women prescribed progestin-only contraception are limited. In this meta-analysis of eight observational studies, the use of progestin-only contraception was not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users of hormonal contraception. The potential association between injectable progestins and thrombosis requires further study.
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.