Trial reportReproductive health2024
Clinical breakage, slippage and acceptability of two commercial ultra-thin polyurethane male condoms compared to a commercial thin latex condom: a randomised, masked, 3 way crossover, multi centre controlled study (SAGCS 2).
Trial report in Reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04622306 (A Randomized, Masked, 3-way Cross-over, Multi-center, Clinical Investigation to Evaluate Two Polyurethane Condoms in Healthy Monogamous Couples Compared With a Standard Latex Condom), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Randomized, Masked, 3-way Cross-over, Multi-center, Clinical Investigation to Evaluate Two Polyurethane Condoms in Healthy Monogamous Couples Compared With a Standard Latex Condom
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Global Syphilis Epidemic: Turning the Tide.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
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
backgroundAlthough natural rubber latex remains dominant as the primary manufacturing material for male condoms synthetic materials first introduced in the early 1990s address many of the limitations of latex including the risk of allergies. Polyurethane elastomers allow condoms to be made significantly thinner to provide greater sensitivity and encourage greater use of condoms for contraception and STI prophylaxis. The primary objective of this Study was to evaluate the breakage, slippage and acceptability of two ultra-thin polyurethane condoms against a thin control latex male condom, designated latex C, in a randomized, cross over, masked, non-inferiority study. The condom designated Polyurethane A was designed for markets where 52/53 mm wide latex condoms are preferred whereas the condom designated Polyurethane B was designed for markets where the smaller 49 mm wide latex condom is preferred.
methodsThe Study was designed to meet the requirements specified in ISO 29943-1: 2017 and FDA guidelines for clinical studies on synthetic condoms. It was conducted by two Essential Access Health centres, one in Northern California and the other in Southern California. Sexually active heterosexual couples (300) aged between 18 and 45 years were recruited to use three sets of five condoms in a block randomized order, recording breakage, slippage and acceptability after each use. A total of 252 couples contributed 2405 evaluable condom uses per protocol for the Condom A versus Latex C comparison (1193 Polyurethane A plus 1212 Latex C), and 247 couples provided 2335 evaluable condom uses per protocol for the Condom B versus Latex C comparison (1142 Polyurethane B plus 1193 Latex C). Only condoms used for vaginal intercourse were included in the analysis.
findingsAlthough the total failure rates (breakage and slippage) for the polyurethane condoms were higher than for the control Latex C condom, all condoms performed extremely well with low failure rates compared to similar condom studies. Condom Polyurethane A met the noninferiority requirements specified in ISO 23409:2011 relative to Latex C, the control NR latex condom, in the full Study population. While condom Polyurethane B did not meet the noninferiority requirement for the full Study population, it did meet the noninferiority requirement when analysis was restricted to the intended population (men with penis lengths ≤ 170 mm). Trial registration The Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04622306, Protocol Reference SAGCS 2, initial release date 11/02/2020.
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.