Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32657328›Full record

ReviewBiology of reproduction2020

The postcoital test in the development of new vaginal contraceptives†.

Christine K Mauck, Kathleen L Vincent

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology of reproduction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christine K MauckDaré Bioscience Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
Kathleen L VincentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

Funding

Safety, and acceptability of a non-hormonal vaginal ringR44HD095724 · NICHD · DARE BIOSCIENCE, INC. · PI MAUCK, CHRISTINE · 2018 to 2020
$1.9M
NICHD NIH HHS R44 HD095724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postcoital tests (PCTs) have been used for over a century in the clinical evaluation of infertile couples, and for nearly 70 years in the evaluation of new vaginal contraceptive products. PCTs have been largely replaced by more modern methods in the study of infertility, but they remain the most useful way to obtain preliminary data on the effectiveness of vaginal contraceptive products. The World Health Organization has described important aspects of the procedure. It involves collection of cervical mucus at a certain time point after intercourse and the counting and characterization of sperm found in the mucus. A wide range of progressively motile sperm (PMS) has been associated with pregnancy rates in infertility studies. Eligibility for contraceptive trials includes the requirement that couples achieve a certain threshold number of PMS per high power field at midcycle in a baseline cycle without the test product. The primary endpoint, or definition of a satisfactory result in test cycles, is predefined. A literature review identified 10 PCT studies of vaginal contraceptives involving nine test products. Phase II trials of vaginal contraceptives have not been deemed feasible in the development of any vaginal contraceptive to date. A PCT study of a test product can be predictive of contraceptive efficacy, although ultimate contraceptive effectiveness is influenced by the ease of use of the product, along with patient compliance. PCT results similar to results seen with products that later showed satisfactory performance in efficacy trials is the best indicator of likely success of a test product.

Indexed as

CoitusContraceptive Devices, FemaleVaginaFemaleHumansMalePregnancySperm Motilitydiaphragmferrous gluconate (iron)monthlynon-coitalnonhormonalpostcoital testsperm motility and transportvaginal contraceptionvaginal ring or device

Identifiers

PMID32657328
PMCPMC7401356

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.