ArticleSystematic reviews2019
Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor women seeking permanent contraception, there are a variety of options available including surgical techniques such as tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy, in-clinic procedures such as hysteroscopic techniques using micro-inserts, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive. Despite the various methods available for women who are seeking permanent contraception, there is not a review or decision-making tool that systematically brings together outcomes related to effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects, non-contraceptive benefits, recovery, or accessibility: all of which are important for shared decision-making between patients and health care providers.
methodsWe registered our protocol [on Prospero: CRD42016038254] following PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was created in collaboration with a librarian, and three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) will be searched along with secondary screening of relevant articles. A third reviewer will adjudicate any discrepancies. Data will be extracted independently according to population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS); length of follow-up; and funding. Articles will be assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to rank and analyze each method according to each objective. If heterogeneity between studies is too high or it is not possible to conduct a network meta-analysis, a narrative analysis of the study results will be provided. DISCUSSION: Clinicians and their patients seeking permanent contraception have several options, yet we were unable to find a systematic review or decision support tool helping to facilitate shared decision-making. This systematic review can inform patients, providers, and health policy decision-makers about which options of permanent contraception will meet different reproductive goals according to various outcomes, which can lead to better health, social, economic, and mental well-being for reproductive age women. This can also aid our understanding of resulting costs to the health care system. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016038254.
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.