Trial reportContraception2019
Comparison of self-reported female condom failure and biomarker-confirmed semen exposure.
Trial report in Contraception, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of the female condom in preventing HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2020Pooled it
- Time for the US food and drug administration approval of condoms for anal intercourse.EClinicalMedicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether rates of self-reported Woman's Condom (WC) clinical failure and semen exposure from a functionality study are comparable to results from a contraceptive efficacy substudy. STUDY
designWe structured our comparative analysis to assess whether functionality studies might credibly supplant contraceptive efficacy studies when evaluating new female condom products. Couples not at risk of pregnancy in the functionality (breakage/slippage/invagination/penile misdirection) study and women in the contraceptive efficacy study completed condom self-reports and collected precoital and postcoital vaginal samples for up to four uses of the WC. Both studies used nearly identical self-report questions and the same self-sampling procedures and laboratory for prostatic specific antigen (PSA), a well-studied semen biomarker. We compared condom failure and semen exposure proportions using generalized estimating equations methods accounting for within-couple correlation.
resultsNinety-five (95) efficacy substudy participants used 334 WC and 408 functionality participants used 1572 WC. Based on self-report, 19.2% WC (64 condoms) clinically failed in the efficacy substudy compared to 12.3% WC (194 condoms) in the functionality study (p=.03). Of the 207 WC efficacy uses with evaluable postcoital PSA levels, 14.5% (30 uses) resulted in semen exposure compared to 14.2% (184 uses) of the 1293 evaluable WC functionality study uses.
conclusionsWhen evaluating the ability of an experimental condom to prevent semen exposure, the rate of clinical condom failure reported by participants risking pregnancy in an efficacy substudy was significantly higher than the rate reported by participants not risking pregnancy in a functionality study. The rate of semen exposure, assessed by an objective biomarker was nearly identical for the two studies. IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that an objective marker of semen exposure in functionality studies could provide a reasonable alternative to contraceptive efficacy studies in evaluating risk of unintended pregnancy and inferring protection from sexually transmitted infection than condom failure rates based on self-report.
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.