Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28146650›Full record

ReviewThe New England journal of medicine2017

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.

Kathryn M Curtis, Jeffrey F Peipert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New England journal of medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Improving ovarian cancer risk assessment using a machine learning model developed on data from the Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Contraceptive access and infant health outcomes.Journal of health economics · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Quality of life, sexual function and metabolic parameters of women during 10 years of using the etonogestrel implant.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Kathryn M CurtisFrom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (K.M.C.); and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (J.F.P.).
Jeffrey F PeipertFrom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (K.M.C.); and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (J.F.P.).

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Drug ImplantsIntrauterine DevicesAdolescentAdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleFemaleHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicContraceptive Agents, FemaleDrug Implants

Identifiers

PMID28146650
PMCPMC11283813

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.