ArticleContraception2025
Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of contraception on the menstrual cycle in contraceptive clinical trials.
Article in Contraception, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
45 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to develop consensus recommendations for measurement and analysis of data on contraceptive-induced menstrual changes (CIMCs) in contraceptive clinical trials. We built upon previous standardization efforts over the last 50 years and prioritized input from a variety of global experts and current regulatory authority guidance on patient-reported outcomes. STUDY
designWe completed a formal consensus-building process with an interdisciplinary group of 57 experts from 30 organizations and 14 countries in five global regions who work across academia, nonprofit research organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and funding agencies. Smaller topical working groups drafted and revised recommendations.
resultsWe developed 44 consensus recommendations, including research approaches to establish the evidence for future improvement in the measurement and analysis of CIMC data and guidance for investigators to implement presently. Priority recommendations call for simplification of terminology to make measurement accessible and patient-centered, accounting for intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact outcomes during study design and recruitment, standardized data collection of primary CIMC and acceptability outcomes, and harmonized approaches for analysis of these data, including addressing missing data.
conclusionBy virtually convening a large group of global experts working across disciplines and sectors via a formal methodology, we developed consensus recommendations that will improve the current and future measurement and analysis of CIMC data in contraceptive clinical trials. Using these standardized approaches will permit valid and reliable contraceptive product labeling on CIMC outcomes that matter to users and greater comparability across trials that can inform clinical guidance and contraceptive counseling. IMPLICATIONS: Consensus recommendations on measuring bleeding changes and related outcomes in contraceptive clinical trials can improve reporting of standardized, patient-centered outcomes in future product labeling. These improvements can enable healthcare providers to offer more relevant guidance on contraceptives and users to make more informed decisions about their choice of method.
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.