SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Comparative effectiveness and safety of different progestins in combined oral contraceptives: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Characteristics of Menstrual Cycles, Prevalence of Menstrual Disorders in Young Women and Their Relationship to Hormonal Contraceptive Use.Health science reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compares four progestins-gestodene (GSD), desogestrel (DSG), drospirenone (DRSP), and levonorgestrel (LNG)-in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) regarding safety, and efficacy for personalized contraceptive selection.
methodsThis systematic review, which searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Medline through Jan 28, 2025, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using NMA with random effects by STATA and GeMTC software. The outcomes included breakthrough bleeding (BTB), irregular bleeding (IB), withdrawal bleeding days, pregnancy rates, and adverse events.
resultsEighteen RCTs were included. GSD demonstrated the lowest incidence of BTB and IB (OR 0.41 (0.26, 0.66); OR 0.67 (0.52, 0.86)). For withdrawal bleeding days, DRSP ranked highest (SUCRA 40.1; I
conclusionThe four progestogens demonstrate comparable contraceptive efficacy while exhibiting distinct therapeutic advantages in their respective clinical applications. DSG for routine use, GSD for bleeding control, DRSP for minimizing androgenic effects, and LNG for emergency contraception.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42024582991.
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.