ReviewTherapeutic advances in reproductive health
Advances in contraception: vaginal contraceptive rings.
Review in Therapeutic advances in reproductive health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of drug-induced pulmonary embolism risk based on the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Progestins - a review of clinical application in gynecology.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vaginal contraceptive ring is very effective and user dependent. In this article, we will discuss the different types of vaginal contraceptive rings, namely, the etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol (ENG/EE) ring (NuvaRing, Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA) and the segesterone acetate (SA)/EE (Annovera, Mayne Pharma, Raleigh, NC, USA) ring. The details of dosing and administration, indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost-effectiveness are presented. This literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. The search terms included 'vaginal contraceptive ring', 'etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol ring', and 'segesterone acetate/ethinyl estradiol ring'. The search was then sorted by year from 2000 until present, and the most recent articles were reviewed. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive reference on the two vaginal contraceptive rings widely used in the United States for clinicians to guide management. Both vaginal contraceptive rings are combination of hormonal contraceptives that suppress ovulation and create physiologic conditions unfavorable for pregnancy. The ENG/EE ring is designed to be replaced monthly, while the SA/EE ring is a single device used over the course of 1 year. Common side effects of both devices include headaches, nausea, vomiting, and vaginitis. Serious adverse reactions can occur with the vaginal contraceptive rings including venous thromboembolism, psychiatric events, and hypersensitivity. Both devices are contraindicated in patients at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic events, patients with a history of breast cancer or other estrogen/progesterone cancers, and patients with severe liver disease. Overall, the vaginal contraceptive ring is well tolerated and liked by patients. Patients should be well counseled on known severe adverse reactions. The vaginal contraceptive ring is more expensive than other forms of contraception and this should be an important point of discussion with patients.
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.