Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27287693›Full record

ArticleContraception2016

Moving towards the goals of FP2020 - classifying contraceptives.

Mario Philip R Festin, James Kiarie, Julie Solo, Jeffrey Spieler, Shawn Malarcher, Paul F A Van Look, Marleen Temmerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Contraceptive Concordance.Studies in family planning · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Mario Philip R FestinDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Switzerland. Electronic address: festinma@who.int.
James KiarieDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Switzerland. Electronic address: kiariej@who.int.
Julie SoloIndependent consultant. Electronic address: juliesolo08@gmail.com.
Jeffrey SpielerIndependent consultant. Electronic address: jmspieler@gmail.com.
Shawn MalarcherUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID), USA. Electronic address: smalarcher@usaid.gov.
Paul F A Van LookIndependent consultant. Electronic address: vanlookp@bluewin.ch.
Marleen TemmermanDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Switzerland. Electronic address: temmermanm@who.int.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the renewed focus on family planning, a clear and transparent understanding is needed for the consistent classification of contraceptives, especially in the commonly used modern/traditional system. The World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) therefore convened a technical consultation in January 2015 to address issues related to classifying contraceptives. The consultation defined modern contraceptive methods as having a sound basis in reproductive biology, a precise protocol for correct use and evidence of efficacy under various conditions based on appropriately designed studies. Methods in country programs like Fertility Awareness Based Methods [such as Standard Days Method (SDM) and TwoDay Method], Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) and emergency contraception should be reported as modern. Herbs, charms and vaginal douching are not counted as contraceptive methods as they have no scientific basis in preventing pregnancy nor are in country programs. More research is needed on defining and measuring use of emergency contraceptive methods, to reflect their contribution to reducing unmet need. The ideal contraceptive classification system should be simple, easy to use, clear and consistent, with greater parsimony. Measurement challenges remain but should not be the driving force to determine what methods are counted or reported as modern or not. Family planning programs should consider multiple attributes of contraceptive methods (e.g., level of effectiveness, need for program support, duration of labeled use, hormonal or nonhormonal) to ensure they provide a variety of methods to meet the needs of women and men.

Indexed as

ConsensusContraceptionContraceptive AgentsContraceptive DevicesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansInternationalityMalePregnancyReproductive HealthContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID27287693
PMCPMC5032916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.