PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2199875

A guide to interpreting contraceptive efficacy studies.

J Trussell·R A Hatcher·W Cates·F H Stewart·K Kost
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Results of trials of various birth control methods and contraceptive products may provide misleading data and engender unrealistic expectations regarding efficacy. An analysis of published efficacy-trials reveals numerous fallacies in their design, performance, and reporting. Consequently, family planning clinicians find it virtually impossible to make valid comparisons among the methods or products. This article reviews the definitions and measures that have been used to assess contraceptive efficacy, describes and illustrates some of the flaws that confound interpretation and comparison of studies, and presents a set of recommendations for future studies. A summary table providing comparative failure rates for all methods of contraception is included.

Explore related subjects

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicContraceptive AgentsContraceptive DevicesFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy, UnwantedResearch DesignAmericasComparative StudiesContraceptionContraception FailureContraceptive EffectivenessContraceptive UsageCritiqueDeveloped CountriesFamily PlanningNorth AmericaNorthern AmericaResearch MethodologyStudiesUnited StatesUse-effectivenessWorldJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Trussell, R A Hatcher, W Cates, F H Stewart, K Kost. 1990. A guide to interpreting contraceptive efficacy studies.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2199875/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Psychiatric disorder criteria and their application to research in different racial groups.

BACKGROUND: The advent of standardized classification and assessment of psychiatric disorders, and considerable joint efforts among many countries has led to the reporting of international rates of psychiatric disorders, and inevitably, their comparison between different racial groups. RESULTS: In neurologic diseases with defined genetic etiologies, the same genetic cause has different phenotypes in different racial groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that genetic differences between races mean that diagnostic criteria refined in one racial group, may not be directly and simply applicable to other racial groups and thus more effort needs to be expended on defining diseases in other groups. Cross-racial confounds (in addition to cultural confounds) make the interpretation of rates in different groups even more hazardous than seems to have been appreciated.

Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic↗