Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34644609›Full record

SynthesisContraception2022

Vaginal ring acceptability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal ring experiences from around the world.

Kathleen Ridgeway, Elizabeth T Montgomery, Kevin Smith, Kristine Torjesen, Ariane van der Straten, Sharon L Achilles, Jennifer B Griffin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06163274 (MATRIX-003), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT06163274 early_phase1terminatednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

MATRIX-003: Trial to Assess Acceptability and Safety of Two Placebo Intravaginal Ring Designs

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PittsburghRan2024 to 2025Enrolled93ConditionsSafety, AcceptabilityArmsPlacebo Intravaginal Ring A, Placebo Intravaginal Ring B
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Therapeutic peptides and proteins: Status and developments in drug delivery.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Drug and therapeutic intravaginal delivery targeting diseases in the female reproductive tract: A mathematical modeling perspective.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Kathleen RidgewayFHI 360, Global Health Population Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States.
Elizabeth T MontgomeryRTI International, Women's Global Health Imperative, Berkeley, CA, United States; Center for AIDS Pervention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Kevin SmithCentre for Global Health, RTI International, Durham, NC, United States.
Kristine TorjesenFHI 360, Global Health Population Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States.
Ariane van der StratenRTI International, Women's Global Health Imperative, Berkeley, CA, United States; Center for AIDS Pervention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Sharon L AchillesDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jennifer B GriffinCentre for Global Health, RTI International, Durham, NC, United States. Electronic address: griffsby@gmail.com.

Funding

Microbicide Trials NetworkUM1AI068633 · NIAID · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI HILLIER, SHARON L. · 2011 to 2021
$175.0M
Statistical and Data Management Center (SDMC): Microbicide Trials NetworkUM1AI068615 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BROWN, ELIZABETH RENATA · 2011 to 2021
$66.5M
Laboratory Center (LC): Microbicide Trials NetworkUM1AI106707 · NIAID · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI MELLORS, JOHN W, ROHAN, LISA CENCIA · 2014 to 2021
$27.1M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068615NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068633NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI106707PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe vaginal ring (ring) is a female-initiated, long-acting drug delivery system for different indications, including HIV prevention. Our aim was to provide evidence for acceptability of the vaginal ring across indications to support dapivirine and multipurpose prevention technology ring introduction and roll out. STUDY

designThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature for publications reporting favorable ring acceptability and secondary outcomes involving actual ring use (comfort, ease of ring use, ring comfort during sex, expulsions, and vaginal symptoms) or hypothetical acceptability for any indication published January 1, 1970-June 15, 2021. We estimated random-effects pooled prevalence, assessing between-study variation using meta-regression.

resultsOf 2,234 records, we included 123 studies with 40,434 actual and hypothetical ring users. The primary outcome assessment included 50 studies with 60 ring subgroups totaling 19,271 ring users. The favorable acceptability pooled prevalence was 85.6% (95%CI 81.3, 89.0), while hypothetical acceptability among non-ring users was 27.6% (95%CI 17.5, 40.5). In meta-regression, acceptability was higher in menopause (95.4%; 95%CI 88.4, 98.2) compared to contraceptive rings (83.7%; 95%CI 75.6, 89.5). Acceptability was lower in pharmacokinetic studies (50%; 95%CI 22.1, 77.9) compared to RCTs (89.5%; 95%CI 85.8.92.4) and in studies assessing acceptability at ≥12 months (78.5%; 95%CI 66.5, 87.1) versus studies assessing acceptability at <3 months (91.9%; 95%CI 83.7, 96.1). European (90.6%; 95%CI 83.9, 94.7), Asian (97.1%; 95%CI 92.0, 99.0), and multi-region studies (93.5%; 95%CI 84.6, 97.4) reported more favorable acceptability compared to African studies (59.4%; 95%CI 38.3, 77.5). Secondary outcomes were similarly favorable, including ring comfort (92.9%; 95%CI 89.2, 95.4), ease of use (90.9%; 95%CI 86.5, 94.0), and comfort during sex (82.7%; 95%CI 76.4, 87.6). Limitations include inconsistent outcome definitions and unmeasured factors affecting acceptability.

conclusionsWomen who used vaginal rings reported they were acceptable across indications geographic regions and indications. Policy makers should consider the ring as an important option for pregnancy and HIV prevention drug development. IMPLICATIONS: This review found favorable acceptability among vaginal ring users across indications and geographic areas, in contrast to low hypothetical acceptability among non-users. Vaginal rings are an important drug delivery system for pregnancy and HIV preventions, and scale-up should plan to address initial hesitancy among new users.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Devices, FemaleFemaleHumansPregnancyVaginaAcceptabilityContraceptionHIV preventionMeta-analysisSystematic reviewVaginal ring

Identifiers

PMID34644609
PMCPMC9128798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.