Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22895920›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Interventions for emergency contraception.

Linan Cheng, Yan Che, A Metin Gülmezoglu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for emergency contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for emergency contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2015
    Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Survey of emergency physicians regarding emergency contraception.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US.Open access journal of contraception · 2016
    Review
  20. Use of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up study.The journal of family planning and reproductive health care · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Linan ChengCentre for Clinical Research and Training, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research (SIPPR), Shanghai, China. linanc2@163.com.
Yan Che
A Metin Gülmezoglu
Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research · CNWorld Health Organization - Pakistan · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Contraception, PostcoitalContraceptives, PostcoitalDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansLevonorgestrelMifepristoneNorpregnadienesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicContraceptives, PostcoitalLevonorgestrelMifepristoneNorpregnadienesulipristal acetate

Identifiers

PMID22895920
OpenAlexW4211098715

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.