SEARCH · PubMed Health
Results for “Vaginal Barrier Methods--standards”
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Nursing protocol for diaphragm contraception.
The diaphragm is becoming the more popular method of birth control in the United States. When used properly, it is a safe and effective alternative for those women who are unable to take birth control pills or prefer another method. The protocol presented here is a comprehensive approach to diaphragm fitting, client instruction and follow-up. The practitioner utilizing such an approach will insure a safe and highly effective method of birth control to those patients who choose the diaphragm as their method of contraception.
International standardization of mechanical contraceptives.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
[Damage to condoms caused by vaginally administered drug].
A 28-year-old woman who was treated for vaginal candidiasis with Gyno-Daktarin vaginal capsules (miconazole nitrate) became pregnant because a condom used during intercourse had ruptured. Incubation in vitro with 400 and 1200 mg miconazole nitrate vaginal capsules (Gyno-Daktarin 3 and Gyno-Daktarin I), but not miconazole nitrate vaginal cream (20 mg/g), was shown to damage rubber condoms. Patients using vaginal medicines should be aware of a possible adverse effect on rubber condoms or contraceptive diaphragms and a subsequent increased risk of pregnancy or contagious diseases such as AIDS. Fatty excipients such as glycerin, paraffin, petrolatum or Witepsol may be involved.
Special report: the truth about condoms. Restrictive label could impede plastic condom sales.
You walk into a drugstore to buy a package of plastic condoms. You happen to notice the label says that no one's sure how well they protect you from pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) like AIDS. Then, the label indirectly points you in the direction of latex condoms. What would you do? Some observers familiar with the condom industry speculate that the restrictive labeling carried on each package of the new plastic condoms for men will not interfere with consumers' purchasing decisions. Other predict an instant replay of the situation faced by makers of the polyurethane Reality female condom: A lack of data on pregnancy rates and STD rates resulted in a label touting latex as a superior product, which in turn caused an onslaught of negative press about the first plastic condom. The US Food and Drug Administration, finding itself in a similar position with approving plastic condoms for men, recently released interim labeling to be followed by all manufacturers who want to sell the new male condoms. Essentially, the manufacturers must point out on the front of the condom box that the product is "for latex-sensitive condom users," and on the back of the box must tell a potential buyer that risks for pregnancy and STDs are not known for the product. Upon reading this disclaimer, the consumer then reads that "latex condoms for men, if used correctly with every act of vaginal intercourse, are highly effective at preventing pregnancy, as well as STDs, including AIDS (HIV infection)."
An actual use comparison of condoms meeting Australian and Swiss standards: results of a double-blind crossover trial.
The performance of condoms in actual use has been poorly researched in the past, especially in comparing condoms that met different quality control standards as indicated by laboratory testing. The present study used a double-blind crossover design to compare the performance of 2 types of condoms in actual use; one that met the Australian and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for condom quality and one that met the more stringent Swiss Quality Seal requirements. Ninety-two men recruited from Metropolitan Melbourne completed a self-report diary sheet after each condom was used which assessed the performance of the condom and the conditions under which it was used. From a total of 1917 condom uses, there was an overall breakage risk of 2.7%. The breakage risk ratio (Australian/ISO:Swiss) for all types of use was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.68-1.99). When subanalyses by method of entry were performed, the condoms meeting the Swiss standard appeared to fare better than the Australian/ ISO standards for anal sex (RR = 4.84, 95% CI 1.07-21.8, P = 0.022), while the opposite was the case for vaginal sex (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.53, P = 0.41). The result for anal use was statistically significant at the 5% level, despite being based on fewer condom trials than that for vaginal use, but this result needs to be replicated. Although the participants appeared representative of the general male population in Melbourne in the age bracket 18-46 years, there was a significant history of condom usage reported. This may have influenced the risk of breakage.