SynthesisRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2026
Hemostatic safety profile of estetrol vs. ethinylestradiol in oral contraceptives: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the hemostatic profile of estetrol/drospirenone (E4/DRSP) compared with ethinylestradiol/drospirenone (EE/DRSP) in adult women. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies compared E4/DRSP with EE/DRSP in adult women and assessed coagulation, anticoagulation, or fibrinolytic markers. Three RCTs (n=183) met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted independently, and pooled mean differences (MD) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Compared to EE/DRSP, E4/DRSP was associated with higher protein S activity (MD = 21.23; 95% CI: 11.83 to 30.64; p<0.00001) and lower levels of fibrinogen (MD = -24.17; 95% CI: -39.15 to -9.19; p=0.002), plasminogen (MD = -27.28; 95% CI: -27.28 to - 22.89; p<0.00001), and SHBG (MD = -183.38; 95% CI: -183.38; 95% CI: -210.93 to -155.84; p<0.00001). No significant differences were observed for D-dimer and antithrombin. Protein C activity was higher in the EE group, though this was an isolated finding with limited interpretability. Conclusion: E4/DRSP demonstrates a more favorable hemostatic profile than EE/DRSP, potentially reducing thrombotic risk. Despite the limited number of RCTs, consistency across markers supports E4 as a safer estrogenic component for contraceptive formulations, with implications for women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism.
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.