ArticleContraception: X2019
Cohort study to evaluate efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant during third, fourth and fifth year of product use in China.
Article in Contraception: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can a 3 months treatment with oral Desogestrel prior to insertion of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant improve continuation rate at 1 year? A randomized trial.BMC research notes · 2023Trial
- Radical surgery for pseudo-ovarian malignancy: a case report of bowel endometriosis with massive ascites.Gland surgery · 2022Article
- Levonorgestrel release rates measured through analysis of two-rod contraceptive explants.Contraception: X · 2020Article
- Randomized trial to evaluate contraceptive efficacy, safety and acceptability of a two-rod contraceptive implant over 4 years in the Dominican Republic.Contraception: X · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSino-implant (II) is a contraceptive implant approved for 4 years of use in China. We evaluated the contraceptive efficacy during the third, fourth and fifth year, and assessed additional pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and acceptability endpoints. STUDY
designWe enrolled a cohort of 255 current Sino-Implant (II) users entering their third year and a second cohort of 243 users entering their fourth year. We followed these two cohorts for 12 and 24 months, respectively. To characterize PK endpoints (i.e. levonorgestrel (LNG), sex hormone binding globulin and free LNG index) over 5 years, we collected blood samples in a subset of 50 participants we followed during the third, fourth and fifth year. We also enrolled small cohorts (n = 20) of Sino-implant (II) users entering their sixth month and second year and followed them each for up to 6 months. Our primary efficacy measures were the pregnancy Pearl Indices during Year 3 and 4. Secondary objectives included assessments of PK, safety, acceptability and efficacy in the fifth year.
resultsWe recorded four pregnancies, with a higher pregnancy rate during Year 3 [1.34 (95% CI: 0.28-3.93)] than Year 4 [0.44 (95% CI: 0.01-2.47)] or Year 5 [0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-2.02)]. The overall pregnancy rate for the third, fourth and fifth years of product use was 0.63 per 100 WY; 95% CI: (0.17-1.62). Mean LNG concentrations remained well above 200 pg/mL (Year 3 = 280.9; Year 4 = 233.6; Year 5 = 270.6). Most participants (93.7%) described their bleeding pattern as acceptable.
conclusionSino-implant (II) is a highly effective contraceptive method in this population of Chinese women over 5 years. IMPLICATIONS: Sino-implant (II) is a highly effective contraceptive method with an estimated Pearl Index of less than 1% over the third, fourth and fifth years of use in a population of Chinese women of reproductive age.
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.