SynthesisBMJ sexual & reproductive health2025
Effectiveness of the etonogestrel subdermal implant in users with overweight and obesity: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe etonogestrel (ENG) subdermal implant is considered a well-tolerated and effective contraception option to avoid unintended pregnancies. However, it is unclear whether being affected by overweight or obesity diminishes the effectiveness of the implant.
objectivesTo systematically assess the published evidence on implant contraceptive effectiveness in women with overweight or obesity, and in women who underwent bariatric surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase for publications reporting implant effectiveness since 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary publications of randomised and non-randomised trials, observational studies and case reports were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified the Pearl Index, qualitative descriptions of contraceptive failure, implant exposure and potential bias, and assessed overall quality of evidence. MAIN
resultsWe found 12 publications meeting our criteria, consisting of nine observational studies and three case reports. Excluding case reports, the publications reported Pearl Indices from 0.0/100 women-years (WY) to 0.23/100WY for women with overweight and obesity, respectively. No studies met the eligibility criteria for the post-bariatric surgery population.
conclusionsObserved implant effectiveness in women with overweight and obesity falls within the range of published data across all weight groups (0.0-1.4/100 WY) and does not suggest a reduced effectiveness associated with higher body mass index. Large, well-controlled studies designed to specifically assess the effectiveness of the ENG implant with respect to user weight, particularly in women following bariatric surgery, are warranted.
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.