ArticleContraception2020
Progesterone vaginal ring as a new contraceptive option for lactating mothers: Evidence from a multicenter non-randomized comparative clinical trial in India.
Article in Contraception, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progestogen-only contraception use during breastfeeding: an updated systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- The safety of intrauterine devices during breastfeeding: an updated systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Family planning and nutrition: systematic review of the effects of family planning on nutritional status of adolescent girls and women of reproductive age.BMJ global health · 2025Pooled it
- Vaginal ring acceptability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal ring experiences from around the world.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Barriers and Enablers Influencing Women's Adoption and Continuation of Vaginally Inserted Contraceptive Methods: A Literature Review.Studies in family planning · 2022Review
- Measuring potential interest in a postpartum contraceptive vaginal ring among breastfeeding women in India.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Husbands' concerns and experiences with the progesterone vaginal ring in three sub-Saharan African countries: a mixed methods study.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2022Article
- Uptake and provision of self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health: findings from a global values and preferences survey.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate and compare contraceptive efficacy, safety, continuation rates and duration of lactational amenorrhea (LA) in married lactating women (20-35 years) using the progesterone vaginal ring (PVR) or Copper-T380A intrauterine device (IUD) during the first postpartum year. STUDY
designWe conducted a one-year multicenter, non-randomized, non-inferiority, open-label, comparative trial at 20 centers in India and compared efficacy, safety, continuation and LA plus feeding patterns and growth/well-being of participants' infants. Women used four 3-month PVRs consecutively (lost PVRs were not replaced) and were to breastfeed at least four times/day. We used Pearl Index (PI) and Kaplan Meier (K-M) rates to analyze pregnancy and K-M for continuation.
resultsWe enrolled 789 women (459 PVR, 330 IUD). Neither PI nor K-M one-year pregnancy rates differed significantly between groups (PI: PVR-0.62; IUD-0.35); (K-M: PVR-0.7; IUD-0.4, p = 0.58). Continuation rates at 12 months were 78.5% (IUD) vs. 56.9% (PVR) (p < 0.001). Ring expulsions and menorrhagia were the most common discontinuation among PVR/IUD users respectively. The median duration of LA among PVR vs. IUD users was 405 vs. 120 days (p < 0.001). Both groups reported similar adverse events (PVR: 24.2%; IUD: 23.0%); there were no serious adverse events among PVR users. Infants from both groups fed 12-7 times/day and grew at expected rates.
conclusionsEfficacy and safety outcomes were comparable among women in both groups. Continuation rates for PVR, a woman-controlled method, were shorter than IUD rates while PVR users maintained LA significantly longer than IUD users. Infant breastfeeding and growth patterns/well-being were favorable in both groups. IMPLICATIONS: PVR, a user-controlled device, offers an additional contraceptive choice for lactating women for one-year postpartum use and can help to address the unmet need for contraception among postpartum women while encouraging breastfeeding to enhance infant growth and well-being.
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.