PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9805940

[Recent progress in contraception].

M Vekemans
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The main new opportunities in contraceptive technology are the monofilament intra-uterine device (IUD) loaded with copper cylinders, the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD, the subcutaneous implants releasing the same hormone and the possibility of drug-induced medical abortion. Recent research concerning vascular complications related to oral contraception, especially with the third generation progestagens, rises interesting but still unresolved questions because of the numerous bias prevailing in case-control studies. Until now, there is no consensus about new prescription attitudes in relation with the risk of such vascular events. Low-dosis pills (oestrogen at 20 micrograms) are not a first choice for oral contraception as they often induce spotting and abnormal blood loss, and therefore entail low compliance. The contraceptive effects of (quasi-) exclusive breast feeding have been figured out and have resulted in the Lactational Amenorrhoea Method (LAM). Future contraceptive methods will include new postcoïtal methods, new injectables with quicker reversibility and less amenorrhoea, biodegradable implants, weekly applicable patches, male-oriented methods combining an androgen and a progestin, and reversible immuno-contraception directed against the gonadotropins.

Explore related subjects

BiasCase-Control StudiesContraceptionFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignRisk FactorsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Vekemans. 1998. [Recent progress in contraception].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9805940/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether trials in head injury are large enough to avoid moderate random errors and designed to avoid moderate biases. DESIGN: All randomised controlled trials on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with head injury published before December 1998 were surveyed. Trials were identified from electronic databases, by hand searching journals and conference proceedings, and by contacting researchers. Data were extracted on the number of participants, quality of concealment of allocation, use of blinding, loss to follow up, and types of participants, interventions, and outcome measures. RESULTS: 279 reports were identified, containing information on 208 separate trials. The average number of participants per trial was 82, with no evidence of increasing size over time. The total number of randomised participants in the 203 trials in which size was reported was 16 613. No trials were large enough to detect reliably a 5% absolute reduction in the risk of death or disability, and only 4% were large enough to detect an absolute reduction of 10%. Concealment of allocation was adequate in 22 and inadequate or unclear in 25 of the 47 (23%) in which it was reported. Of 126 trials assessing disability, 111 reported the number of patients followed up, and average loss to follow up was 19%. Of trials measuring disability, 26 (21%) reported that outcome assessors were blinded. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials in head injury are too small and poorly designed to detect or refute reliably moderate but clinically important benefits or hazards of treatment. Limited funding for injury research and unfamiliarity with issues of consent may have been important obstacles.

Bias↗