ReviewCurrent opinion in obstetrics & gynecology2015
Update on permanent contraception options for women.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Multiplatform characterization of online permanent female contraception discussion among social media users: analysis of Twitter and Reddit.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- ComparisonInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Safety reporting of Essure medical device: a qualitative and quantitative assessment on the FDA manufacturer and user facility device experience database in 2018.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Patients' perceptions toward and the driving factors of decision-making for opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean section.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Recent developments have made female permanent contraception an increasingly attractive option, and pregnant women in particular ought to be counselled about it.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.