Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24043434›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2013

Invited commentary: How can we reconcile the findings of Keyes et al.'s study with the experience of our patients in clinical practice?

Ellen R Wiebe

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Male hormonal contraception: hope and promise.The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology · 2017
    Review
  3. Keyes et Al. Respond to "hormonal contraception and mood".American journal of epidemiology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ellen R Wiebe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the accompanying study by Keyes et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178(9):1378-1388) shows us that women currently using hormonal contraception (HC) have better scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and report fewer suicide attempts, it does not show us that HC protects women from mood disorders or that HC is free of the mood-related side effects which cause high rates of discontinuation. The groups compared in the Keyes et al. study were different in many ways; the women using HC were younger, were more likely to engage in positive health behaviors, and had lower depression scores at each prior interview. Women with mood disorders are more likely to avoid or discontinue HC and more likely to experience worsening mood while on HC. The negative mood-related side effects experienced by women using HC (irritability and lability) are not captured by a screening tool for clinical depression, such as the depression scale used in this study. The database used in this study was longitudinal and multiwave, so the authors could have compared changes in depressive symptoms among women who switched from hormonal to nonhormonal contraceptive methods (and vice versa) across different waves. Only if the same women experienced greater levels of depressive symptoms after discontinuing HC and fewer symptoms when they restarted HC could we conclude that HC may protect women from mood disorders.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Agents, FemaleDepressionEstrogensFemaleHumansProgestinsContraceptive Agents, FemaleEstrogensProgestinsdepressionhormonal contraceptionmoodoral contraceptivesscreening

Identifiers

PMID24043434

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.