Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35029663›Full record

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.

Sharmila Brabaharan, Sajesh K Veettil, Jennifer E Kaiser, Vrosha Rau Raja Rao, Rujira Wattanayingcharoenchai, Marikannan Maharajan, Putsarat Insin, Pattarawalai Talungchit, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, Ammarin Thakkinstian and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Brazilian Guideline on Menopausal Cardiovascular Health - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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 · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Sharmila BrabaharanSchool of Postgraduate Studies, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sajesh K VeettilDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Jennifer E KaiserDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Vrosha Rau Raja RaoDepartment of Pharmacy, Sarikei Public Health Clinic, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Rujira WattanayingcharoenchaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Marikannan MaharajanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Putsarat InsinDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pattarawalai TalungchitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thunyarat AnothaisintaweeDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ammarin ThakkinstianDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nathorn ChaiyakunaprukDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
International Medical University · MYMahidol University · THUniversity of Utah · USHospital Sarikei · MYRajavithi Hospital · THRamathibodi Hospital · THSiriraj Hospital · THUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCohort StudiesContraceptive Agents, HormonalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansLong Term Adverse EffectsMeta-Analysis as TopicPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicWomen's HealthContraceptive Agents, Hormonal

Identifiers

PMID35029663
PMCPMC8760614
OpenAlexW4206422692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.