ArticleContraception2025
Expanding contraceptive options: A scoping review of medically approved contraceptive methods that are not in the WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria.
Article in Contraception, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe World Health Organization's (WHO) Medical Eligibility Criteria for contraceptive use (MEC) provides recommendations on the safety and efficacy of a range of contraceptive methods for users with various medical conditions. However, there are methods with medical regulatory agency approval that are not included in WHO guidance. Our objectives were to evaluate the evidence on methods that have regulatory approval for use in any member state, but which are not included in the MEC 2015, and to determine whether the evidence should be systematically reviewed to inform possible inclusion in a new WHO guideline. STUDY
designWe conducted a scoping review of experimental studies found through two bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase) from database inception to December 2023. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts to determine eligibility based on a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria; one additional reviewer resolved conflicts. Reviewers extracted data on method safety, efficacy, and acceptability using a standardized tool.
resultsWe identified three methods that met our review criteria: ormeloxifene, quinestrol-containing contraception, and mifepristone for emergency contraception (EC). Our initial search strategies yielded 386 total results. Five publications related to ormeloxifene, five to quinestrol-containing contraception, and 10 to mifepristone for EC were included. The data on these methods was highly variable.
conclusionRigorous systematic reviews of the evidence on safety, efficacy and dosage of ormeloxifene, quinestrol-containing contraception, and mifepristone for EC are needed to inform WHO recommendations on these methods. As these methods are already being used, international guidance for practitioners is essential.
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.