SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for emergency contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Use of emergency contraception among women with experience of domestic violence and abuse: a systematic review.BMC women's health · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions for emergency contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2015Guideline
- Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Effect of BMI and body weight on pregnancy rates with LNG as emergency contraception: analysis of four WHO HRP studies.Contraception · 2017Trial
- Review
- 90 YEARS OF PROGESTERONE: Selective progesterone receptor modulators in gynaecological therapies.Journal of molecular endocrinology · 2020Review
- Article
- The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?Contraception · 2018Article
- Emergency Contraception in Mexico: Trends in Knowledge and Ever-Use 2006-2014.Maternal and child health journal · 2017Article
- "I don't know what I would have done." Women's experiences acquiring ulipristal acetate emergency contraception online from 2011 to 2015.Contraception · 2017Article
- The use of mifepristone in abortion associated with an increased risk of uterine leiomyomas.Medicine · 2017Observational
- Experience with oral emergency contraception since the OTC switch in Germany.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2017Article
- Trends in the use of emergency contraception in Britain: evidence from the second and third National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2016Article
- Association between knowledge about levonorgestrel emergency contraception and the risk of ectopic pregnancy following levonorgestrel emergency contraception failure: a comparative survey.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2016Article
- Survey of emergency physicians regarding emergency contraception.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Preference for and efficacy of oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception with concomitant placement of a levonorgestrel IUD: a prospective cohort study.Contraception · 2016Article
- New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US.Open access journal of contraception · 2016Review
- Use of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up study.The journal of family planning and reproductive health care · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve.
objectivesTo determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy. SEARCH
methodsThe search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/EMBASE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2011). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Quality assessment was also done by two review authors independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied. MAIN
resultsOne hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (86/100). Meta-analysis indicated that mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) (20 trials; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) or low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) (11 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) were significantly more effective than levonorgestrel (LNG), but the significance was marginal when only high-quality studies were included (4 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone (25 trials; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). This difference was not statistically significant when only high-quality trials were considered (6 trials; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10). Ulipristal acetate (UPA) appeared more effective (2 trials; RR 0.63) than LNG at a marginal level (P = 0.09) within 72 hours of intercourse.Regarding effectiveness in relation to the time of administration, women who took LNG within 72 hours of intercourse were significantly less likely to be pregnant than those who took it after 72 hours (4 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time affected the effectiveness of mifepristone and UPA.Single-dose LNG (1.5 mg) showed similar effectiveness as the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 h apart) (3 trials; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33). This conclusion was not modified by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration.Mifepristone (all doses) (3 trials; RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) and LNG (5 trials; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) were more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy. One trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone. No significant difference of effectiveness was identified in this trial (996 women; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76).All methods of EC were safe. Nausea and vomiting occurred with oestrogen-containing EC methods and progestogen and anti-progestogen methods caused changes in subsequent menses. LNG users were more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date, but UPA users were more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. AUTHORS'
conclusionsIntermediate-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) was superior to LNG and Yuzpe regimens. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) may be more effective than LNG (0.75 mg two doses), but this was not conclusive. UPA may be more effective than LNG. LNG proved to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was the most effective EC method and was the only EC method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.
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.