ArticleContraception2024
Efficacy of medication abortion with concurrent initiation of progestin contraceptives: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Contraception, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate medication abortion (MAB) outcomes for participants receiving intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injections or subdermal etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone compared to those who did not in a real-world setting. STUDY
designThis retrospective cohort study included MAB patients from one Planned Parenthood health center in St. Paul, MN, between 2017 and 2019. We abstracted electronic health records and compared sociodemographic variables, clinical information, and treatment failure rates (primary outcome) between study groups with logistic regression (generating odds ratios [OR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]).
resultsAmong 7296 MAB participants, 224 (3.1%) received DMPA injections and 309 (4.2%) received etonogestrel implants concurrently with mifepristone; 141 (62.9%) and 200 (64.7%) completed follow-up respectively. From a random sample of 1000, 990 comparison participants met inclusion criteria; 704 (71.1%) completed follow-up. Fourteen (9.9%) DMPA participants (aOR 4.26, 95% CI 1.87-9.68, p < 0.001) and 6 (3.0%) etonogestrel implant participants (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.48-3.55, p = 0.522) required additional treatment to empty the uterus and/or had an ongoing pregnancy, each contrasted with 15 (2.1%) comparison patients (models adjusted for gestational duration, patient age, parity, and race).
conclusionAlthough our study is limited by high rates of loss to follow-up, our analysis suggests that concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone may decrease MAB efficacy, while etonogestrel implant placement does not appear to alter MAB outcomes. These findings are overall consistent with prior literature and inform post-MAB contraception counseling. IMPLICATIONS: This retrospective cohort study reinforces prior randomized controlled trial findings that concurrent depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection with mifepristone administration may decrease medication abortion efficacy. Conversely, concurrent etonogestrel contraceptive implant placement with mifepristone administration does not appear to decrease medication abortion efficacy. These findings inform post-abortion contraception counseling.
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.