Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38952779›Full record

ArticleContraception: X2024

Maximizing the effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: The case for precoital use.

Douglas J Taylor, Nathalie Kapp, Markus J Steiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Douglas J TaylorFHI 360, Product Development and Introduction Department, Durham, NC, United States.
Nathalie KappInternational Planned Parenthood Federation, London, UK.
Markus J SteinerFHI 360, Product Development and Introduction Department, Durham, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: U.S. and World Health Organization Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use state people may have an advanced supply of emergency contraception (EC) to minimize treatment delays. We sought to characterize the potential improvement in effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel (LNG-EC) if it were taken up to a few hours before unprotected sex. Study design: We expanded on an existing mathematical model for the maximum attainable effectiveness of LNG-EC, assuming it exclusively works to disrupt ovulation, and compared results with point estimates from nine studies when it was taken up to 72 hours after sex. We then modelled how effectiveness might have improved if subjects had taken LNG-EC up to 3 hours before sex. Results: Taking LNG-EC immediately after sex could potentially reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy by 91%. However, population-average maximum attainable effectiveness levels ranged from just 49% to 67% when accounting for the distributions of postcoital treatment delays in the example studies. If half the subjects had taken it 3 hours before sex, then maximum effectiveness levels would have ranged from 70% to 81%. Conclusions: At the individual level, taking LNG-EC a few hours before sex is a logical extension of Selected Practice Recommendations regarding an advanced supply of EC and, based on our modeling, should be advocated for people who can reasonably anticipate an unprotected sex act. In the absence of more clinical data, however, people should not routinely rely on precoital use of LNG-EC to prevent pregnancy unless modern, effective contraceptives are inaccessible to them. Implications: Based on mathematical modeling, individuals who anticipate needing to take LNG-EC for an impending unprotected act of sex could further reduce their chance of an undesired pregnancy by taking it a few hours in advance.

Indexed as

Emergency contraceptionLevonorgestrelMathematical modelingUnintended pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38952779
PMCPMC11214990

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.