SynthesisJAMA network open2022
Association of Hormonal Contraceptive Use With Adverse Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 11 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Nutritional Index and Cancer Prognostic Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of soy and isoflavone interventions on plasma lipid profiles in postmenopausal women: an umbrella review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Associations of breastfeeding with maternal and child health outcomes: umbrella review.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Credibility of the evidence on green space and human health: an overview of meta-analyses using evidence grading approaches.EBioMedicine · 2024Pooled it
- Triglyceride-glucose index and health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative outcomes of obese and non-obese patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of virtual reality training on motor performance, activity of daily living, and quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease: an umbrella review comprising meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Association of N-acetylcysteine use with contrast-induced nephropathy: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Disparities in COVID-19 related outcomes in the United States by race and ethnicity pre-vaccination era: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Oral contraceptive usage among healthcare workers and its impact on COVID-19 booster vaccination immunogenicity.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- Contraception-Related Posts from Adolescents, Young Adults, and Caregivers on Reddit: A Qualitative Content Analysis.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2026Article
- The Microbiota-Endometriosis Axis: An Immune-Endocrine Integration Model and Emerging Therapeutic Targets.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular risk profile according to World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use of women using hormonal contraception in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Identifying psychiatric comorbidities that occur following the introduction of hormonal contraception: a scoping review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Smooth muscle of the lower urinary tract: BK-RyR coupling in physiology and pathophysiology.Journal of muscle research and cell motility · 2025Review
- Traditional Chinese medicine therapies for insomnia: An umbrella review and evidence map.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- What do users in a polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) forum think about the treatments they tried: Analysing treatment sentiment using machine learning.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Aspirin does not modify cardiovascular event risk in endometriosis in the California Teachers Study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
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 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Meta-analyses have reported conflicting data on the safety of hormonal contraception, but the quality of evidence for the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse health outcomes has not been quantified in aggregate. Objective: To grade the evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse health outcomes among women. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to August 2020. Search terms included hormonal contraception, contraceptive agents, progesterone, desogestrel, norethindrone, megestrol, algestone, norprogesterones, and levonorgestrel combined with terms such as systematic review or meta-analysis. Evidence Review: The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was graded using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2, which rated quality as critically low, low, moderate, or high. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence in meta-analyses of RCTs, with evidence graded as very low, low, moderate, or high. Evidence of associations from meta-analyses of cohort studies was ranked according to established criteria as nonsignificant, weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, or convincing. Results: A total of 2996 records were screened; of those, 310 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 58 articles (13 meta-analyses of RCTs and 45 meta-analyses of cohort studies) were selected for evidence synthesis. Sixty associations were described in meta-analyses of RCTs, and 96 associations were described in meta-analyses of cohort studies. Among meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 of the 60 associations were nominally statistically significant (P ≤ .05); no associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse outcomes were supported by high-quality evidence. The association between the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and reductions in endometrial polyps associated with tamoxifen use (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38) was graded as having high-quality evidence, and this evidence ranking was retained in the subgroup analysis. Among meta-analyses of cohort studies, 40 of the 96 associations were nominally statistically significant; however, no associations between hormonal contraceptive use and adverse outcomes were supported by convincing evidence in the primary and subgroup analyses. The risk of venous thromboembolism among those using vs not using oral contraception (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.76-3.32) was initially supported by highly suggestive evidence, but this evidence was downgraded to weak in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions And Relevance: The results of this umbrella review supported preexisting understandings of the risks and benefits associated with hormonal contraceptive use. Overall, the associations between hormonal contraceptive use and cardiovascular risk, cancer risk, and other major adverse health outcomes were not supported by high-quality evidence.
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.