Observational studyBMC women's health2018
Real-world experience of women using extended-cycle vs monthly-cycle combined oral contraception in the United States: the National Health and Wellness Survey.
Observational study in BMC women's health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Status Is Affected, and Phase I/II Biotransformation Activity Altered in Young Women Using Oral Contraceptives Containing Drospirenone/Ethinyl Estradiol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Contraception and Amenorrhea: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study on Acceptability in Filipino/Filipino-American Women.Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society · 2026Article
- The myth of menstruation: how menstrual regulation and suppression impact contraceptive choice.BMC women's health · 2019Article
- Anteceding factors predicting absenteeism and presenteeism in urban area in Malaysia.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe real-world experience of women receiving extended-cycle combined oral contraception (COC) versus monthly-cycle COC has not been reported.
methodsData were from the United States 2013 National Health and Wellness Survey. Eligible women (18-50 years old, premenopausal, without hysterectomy) currently using extended-cycle COC (3 months between periods) were compared with women using monthly-cycle COC. Treatment satisfaction (1 "extremely dissatisfied" to 7 "extremely satisfied"), adherence (8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale
resultsParticipants included 260 (6.7%) women using extended-cycle and 3616 (93.3%) using monthly-cycle COC. Women using extended-cycle COC reported significantly higher treatment satisfaction (P = 0.001) and adherence (P = 0.04) and reduced heavy menstrual bleeding (P = 0.029). A non-significant tendency toward reduced menstrual pain (39.5% versus 47.3%) and menstrual cycle-related symptoms (40.0% versus 48.7%) was found in women using extended-cycle versus monthly-cycle COC. Significantly more women using extended-cycle COC reported health-related diagnoses, indicating preferential prescription for extended-cycle COC among women reporting more health problems. Consistent with this poorer health, more women using extended-cycle COC reported fatigue, headache, and activity impairment (P values < 0.05). There were no other significant differences between groups.
conclusionsThis real-world observational study supports extended-cycle COC as a valuable treatment option with high satisfaction, high adherence, and reduced heavy menstrual bleeding.
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.