Trial reportTrials2014
MObile Technology for Improved Family Planning: update to randomised controlled trial protocol.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01823861 (Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Effect of a mobile phone-based intervention on post-abortion contraception: a randomized controlled trial in Cambodia.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis update outlines changes to the MObile Technology for Improved Family Planning study statistical analysis plan and plans for long-term follow-up. These changes result from obtaining additional funding and the decision to restrict the primary analysis to participants with available follow-up data. The changes were agreed prior to finalising the statistical analysis plan and sealing the dataset. METHODS/
designThe primary analysis will now be restricted to subjects with data on the primary outcome at 4-month follow-up. The extreme-case scenario, where all those lost to follow-up are counted as non-adherent, will be used in a sensitivity analysis. In addition to the secondary outcomes outlined in the protocol, we will assess the effect of the intervention on long-acting contraception (implant, intra-uterine device and permanent methods).To assess the long-term effect of the intervention, we plan to conduct additional 12-month follow-up by telephone self-report for all the primary and secondary outcomes used at 4 months. All participants provided informed consent for this additional follow-up when recruited to the trial. Outcome measures and analysis at 12 months will be similar to those at the 4-month follow-up. The primary outcomes of the trial will be the use of an effective modern contraceptive method at 4 months and at 12 months post-abortion. Secondary outcomes will include long-acting contraception use, self-reported pregnancy, repeat abortion and contraception use over the 12-month post-abortion period. DISCUSSION: Restricting the primary analysis to those with follow-up data is the standard approach for trial analysis and will facilitate comparison with other trials of interventions designed to increase contraception uptake or use. Undertaking 12-month trial follow-up will allow us to evaluate the long-term effect of the intervention.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01823861.
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.