Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32014720›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal2020

Contraceptive methods of privately insured US women with congenital heart defects.

Kayla N Anderson, Naomi K Tepper, Karrie Downing, Elizabeth C Ailes, Ginnie Abarbanell, Sherry L Farr

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reproductive Health of Women with Congenital Heart Defects.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Kayla N AndersonDivision of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: KAnderson5@cdc.gov.
Naomi K TepperDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Karrie DowningDivision of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Elizabeth C AilesDivision of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ginnie AbarbanellDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine/St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Sherry L FarrDivision of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American Heart Association recommends women with congenital heart defects (CHD) receive contraceptive counseling early in their reproductive years, but little is known about contraceptive method use among women with CHD. We describe recent female sterilization and reversible prescription contraceptive method use by presence of CHD and CHD severity in 2014.

methodsUsing IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases, we included women aged 15 to 44 years with prescription drug coverage in 2014 who were enrolled ≥11 months annually in employer-sponsored health plans between 2011 and 2014. CHD, CHD severity, contraceptive methods, and obstetrics-gynecology and cardiology provider encounters were identified using billing codes. We used log-binomial regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare contraceptive method use overall and by effectiveness tier by CHD presence and, for women with CHD, severity.

resultsRecent sterilization or current reversible prescription contraceptive method use varied slightly among women with (39.2%) and without (37.3%) CHD, aPR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.01-1.07]. Women with CHD were more likely to use any Tier I method (12.9%) than women without CHD (9.3%), aPR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.33-1.50]. Women with severe, compared to non-severe, CHD were less likely to use any method, aPR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.78-0.92], or Tier I method, aPR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-0.99]. Approximately 60% of women with obstetrics-gynecology and <40% with cardiology encounters used any included method.

conclusionsThere may be missed opportunities for providers to improve uptake of safe, effective contraceptive methods for women with CHD who wish to avoid pregnancy.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, UnplannedAdolescentAdultContraceptionContraception BehaviorFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansMorbidityPregnancyPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesSexual BehaviorSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32014720
PMCPMC7521137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.