SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Interventions for emergency contraception.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03395756 (Investigation of the Potential for Intramuscular Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate as Emergency Contraception), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Investigation of the Potential for Intramuscular Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate as Emergency Contraception
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 342 citations in OpenAlex.
- Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.Reproductive health · 2017Pooled it
- Exploring Postpartum Use of Advance Provision of Ulipristal Acetate and Its Promotion of Reproductive Autonomy.O&G open · 2025Article
- Hyperemesis gravidarum: Associations with personal and family history of nausea.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Review
- Scoping Review of Access to Emergency Contraception for Sexual Assault Victims in Emergency Departments in the United States.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2021Article
- Emergency contraception from the pharmacy 20 years on: a mystery shopper study.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2021Article
- Simplifying contraception requirements for iPLEDGE: A decision analysis.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020Article
- The attitudes of Korean physicians toward emergency contraceptive pills: regarding women's access and rescheduling.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2019Article
- The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception and beyond: a systematic review update.International journal of women's health · 2019Article
- Contraceptive Strategies in Women With Heart Failure or With Cardiac Transplantation.Current heart failure reports · 2018Review
- Piroxicam Plus Plan B for Emergency Contraception.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.
objectivesTo determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy. SEARCH
methodsIn February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes. MAIN
resultsWe included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I AUTHORS'
conclusionsLevonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.
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.