ArticlePloS one2025
Estimating the effect of hormonal contraceptive use on anemia: A cross-sectional comparative analysis of 46 Demographic and Health Surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging connections between family planning and nutrition to improve the health of women.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Article
- Pathophysiological Consequences Associated with Hormonal Contraceptives Use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review.Open access journal of contraception · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnemia is a significant health concern for women in low- and middle-income countries. Hormonal contraceptives, which can reduce heavy menstrual bleeding and prevent pregnancy and its resulting blood loss, are an underexplored opportunity for anemia reduction.
methodsUsing Demographic and Health Survey data from 46 countries across four global regions, we examined country prevalence of anemia (i.e., hemoglobin below 12 g/dl via HemoCue testing) among women aged 15-49 years who were not pregnant. For each country, we used multivariable logistic regression to compare odds of anemia between women using hormonal contraceptive (users) to women using non-hormonal contraception or not using any contraception (nonusers). We merged data across countries to examine this effect stratified by contraceptive method and length of use and conducted a quantitative bias analysis of the anemia test.
resultsAnemia prevalence ranged from 12% in Rwanda to 63% in Gabon. In the merged sample, the crude odds ratio comparing anemia in users of hormonal contraception to nonusers was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.56-0.58); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.55 (0.39-0.79) when controlling for age, education, wealth, and rurality. In the stratified analysis of merged data, we found that users of all hormonal contraception had lower adjusted odds of anemia compared to nonusers (AOR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.46-0.57), and that the protective effect was strongest among users of contraceptive injections (AOR:0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.45). In our bias analysis, the crude odds of anemia for users ranged from 0.29 to 0.57 when varying anemia test sensitivity and specificity between 75% and 100%.
conclusionsFuture research should directly examine the causal link between hormonal contraceptive use and anemia as a high impact non-contraceptive benefit of hormonal contraception, especially with understudied methods such as injectable contraception and contraceptive implants.
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.