Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26406934›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in obstetrics & gynecology2015

Update on permanent contraception options for women.

Eva Patil, Jeffrey T Jensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. ComparisonInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva PatilDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Jeffrey T Jensen

Funding

Upgrade of confocal microscopy at the Oregon National Primate Research CenterP51OD011092 · OD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Bonnie J. Nagel · 2012 to 2026
$203.9M
YR 50 PROJ- ROBERTS PRIMATE ISLETP51RR000163 · NCRR · OREGON REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER · PI FRUH, KLAUS J · 1985 to 2011
$140.8M
OHSU Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 ProgramK12HD085809 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Aaron B Caughey · 2015 to 2026
$4.0M
NCRR NIH HHS P51 RR000163NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD085809NIH HHS P51 OD011092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPermanent methods are the most commonly used contraceptive options worldwide. Even with the increase in popularity and accessibility of long-acting reversible methods, there remains high demand for permanent options, especially among women in developing countries. RECENT

findingsTraditional methods of permanent contraception, such as postpartum tubal ligation and interval surgical tubal occlusion or electrocautery by mini-laparotomy or laparoscopy are well tolerated and highly effective. Bilateral total salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction is currently being investigated. Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion reduces or eliminates the need for anesthesia, but requires surgical training and specialized equipment. Alternative permanent contraception methods are being explored including immediately effective hysteroscopic methods, and nonsurgical permanent contraception methods that have the potential to improve access and reduce cost. SUMMARY: Permanent contraception methods are an important part of the contraceptive methods mix designed to meet the needs of women who have completed desired family size or wish never to become pregnant. Current surgical approaches to permanent contraception are well tolerated and highly effective. The development of a highly effective nonsurgical approach could simplify the provision of permanent contraception.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityWomen's HealthAge FactorsChoice BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisElectrocoagulationFemaleHumansLaparotomySocioeconomic FactorsSterilization, ReproductiveSterilization, Tubal

Identifiers

PMID26406934
PMCPMC4678034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.