ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2017
Experience with oral emergency contraception since the OTC switch in Germany.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the reproductive health curriculum at medical schools in Germany: an insight into medical students' knowledge and opinion towards emergency contraception and abortion - a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The current status of emergency contraception use in reproductive-aged Korean women: a population-based internet survey.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Availability of emergency contraception in large Brazilian municipalities: a guaranteed right?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The attitudes of Korean physicians toward emergency contraceptive pills: regarding women's access and rescheduling.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2019Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn March 2015, the oral emergency contraceptives levonorgestrel (LNG) and ulipristal acetate (UPA) were released from prescription-only status in Germany. The main research question is to analyse whether the OTC status of oral emergency contraceptives has an influence on the patterns of use.
methodsAll information is based on searches for public domain sources on emergency contraception. Searches were made for scientific publications, statistics, and surveys.
resultsDue to additional active ingredient properties, UPA is superior to LNG in terms of ovulation-inhibiting effect. Since the OTC switch, demand for oral emergency contraceptives has risen by almost 50%, especially at weekends when sexual encounters and thus contraceptive failures are most frequent. However, the age distribution of the users has not changed as a result of the OTC switch. Doctors still play an important role in advising on emergency contraception after the removal of the prescription-only requirement. Pregnancies despite emergency contraception are terminated in more than half of the cases. In federal states with higher rates of use of the morning-after pill, fewer terminations of pregnancy were performed.
conclusionAs a result of the OTC switch, more women and girls use the morning-after pill after unprotected intercourse and the time between unprotected intercourse and taking the oral emergency contraceptive decreases. This is of great advantage in terms of the mechanism of action. UPA is used more frequently than LNG. Only half of all people aged between 16 and 39 years in Germany are aware of the morning-after pill and 94% of women who had a pregnancy terminated in 2015 did not use any emergency contraception after the unprotected intercourse. In the population, there is still a great need for information and education on contraception and emergency 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.