Trial reportContraception2013
An exploratory, randomized, crossover MRI study of microbicide delivery with the SILCS diaphragm compared to a vaginal applicator.
Trial report in Contraception, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learnings From an Innovative Model to Expand Access to a New and Underutilized Nonhormonal Contraceptive Diaphragm.Global health, science and practice · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicrobicide gels studied for HIV prevention often are delivered via a single-use vaginal applicator. Using a contraceptive diaphragm such as the SILCS diaphragm for gel delivery could have advantages, including lower cost and additional pregnancy prevention. STUDY
designWe performed an exploratory, nonblinded, randomized, crossover study among healthy, sexually active, nonpregnant women. Using BufferGel, we evaluated three microbicide delivery methods for gel distribution and retention: SILCS single-sided gel delivery, SILCS double-sided gel delivery and a vaginal applicator (without SILCS). Magnetic resonance images were taken at baseline, after gel insertion, and immediately and 6 h after simulated intercourse. Three women completed all gel delivery methods described in this article.
resultsMagnetic resonance imaging analysis indicated similar gel spread in the vagina among all three methods. SILCS single-sided gel application resulted in the most consistent longitudinal coverage; SILCS double-sided gel application was the most consistent in the transverse dimension.
conclusionsGel coverage was similar with all three methods. These results suggest that the SILCS microbicide delivery system is comparable to vaginal applicators for delivery of gel products intravaginally.
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.