Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31618525›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational science2020

Development of Novel Male Contraceptives.

John K Amory

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John K AmoryDepartment of Medicine, Center for Research in Reproduction and Contraception, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
University of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unintended pregnancy is surprisingly common, accounting for 40-50% of pregnancies worldwide. Contraception is the most effective means of preventing unintended pregnancy. Seventy percent of all contraceptives are used by women; however, some women are unable to use contraceptives due to health conditions or side effects. Many men wish to take a more active role family planning, but currently have only two effective male contraceptive options, condoms and vasectomy. Therefore, work to develop novel male contraceptives analogous to popular female methods, such as daily pills or long-acting shots and implants, is underway. This paper will briefly discuss the pros and cons of condoms and vasectomies, and then review the research into novel methods of male contraception.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedCoitus InterruptusCondomsContraceptionContraceptive Agents, MaleContraceptive EffectivenessDrug DevelopmentFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMalePregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedSpermatogenesisVasectomyContraceptive Agents, Male

Identifiers

PMID31618525
PMCPMC7070810
OpenAlexW2981045255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.