ReviewArchives of dermatological research2024
Contraceptive counseling for iPLEDGE and its burden on dermatologists.
Review in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Religious and Cultural Considerations for the Dermatologic Care of Muslim Communities: A Narrative Review of Patient-Centered Strategies.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2006, iPLEDGE, a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), has attempted to prevent fetal exposures in people taking isotretinoin through contraceptive requirements and regular pregnancy testing. There has been criticism of iPLEDGE's requirements, results, and accessibility. iPLEDGE has placed significant burdens on physicians, patients, and administrative staff. Some level of burden is acceptable to prevent fetal exposures, but iPLEDGE burdens are so strenuous that physicians may choose not to prescribe isotretinoin because of them. There are several evidence-based adaptations that iPLEDGE and physicians can enact to improve the isotretinoin experience. First, physicians can practice shared-decision making in contraceptive counseling and educate patients on long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) to improve the counseling process and outcomes. Second, physicians can take advantage of the reimbursed iPLEDGE contraceptive counseling sessions and refer patients accordingly. Finally, iPLEDGE should recognize the variation in efficacy among contraceptives. Specifically, LARCs and permanent surgical sterilization should be exempt from certain iPLEDGE requirements such as monthly pregnancy testing and attestations. iPLEDGE should work with dermatologists for the continual improvement of iPLEDGE. Communication, repetitive reassessment, and subsequent adaptations will result in better care for patients requiring isotretinoin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38805059What 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.