Measuring true contraceptive efficacy -: A randomized approach -: Condom vs. spermicide vs. no method

被引:7
|
作者
Steiner, MJ
Hertz-Picciotto, I
Schulz, KF
Sangi-Haghpeykar, H
Earle, BB
Trussell, J
机构
[1] Family Hlth Int, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Epidemiol, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[4] Baylor Coll Med, Div Contracept Res & Dev, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Wake Forest Univ, Bowman Gray Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Winston Salem, NC 27103 USA
[6] Princeton Univ, Off Populat Res, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
关键词
contraception; condoms; spermicides; randomized controlled trial;
D O I
10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00124-3
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
No investigator has attempted to measure prospectively the true efficacy of a contraceptive method, compared with a control group using no method, because contraceptive trials focus on women trying to avoid pregnancy and ethical concerns do not permit the withholding of contraception. We tested the feasibility of an approach that recruited women who desired pregnancy but were willing to postpone conception by 1 month. In this protocol, we restricted frequency and timing of intercourse to one coital act on the most fertile day of the menstrual cycle, as measured by a luteinizing hormone (LH) detection kit. participants were randomized to use either a male latex condom, spermicidal film, or no method. In this feasibility study we recruited 58 women at three sites, with one site recruiting 25 women in 5 months. Among 54 women who completed the study, we found a 12% pregnancy rate for the group using no method (2/17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-36%) and an 11% pregnancy rate for the group using spermicidal film (2/18; 95% CI, 1-35%). No pregnancies occurred among the 19 women using condoms (0/19; 95% CI, 0-18%). The wide confidence intervals illustrate the small sample size of this pilot study and no conclusions can be drawn about the relative efficacy of the methods. Having demonstrated the feasibility of this study design, we now urge the initiation of a large-scale study to evaluate the efficacy of barrier methods using our randomized approach, with a control arm using no method of contraception. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:375 / 378
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] SCHENO: Measuring Schema vs. Noise in Graphs
    Hibshman, Justus Isaiah
    Hoq, Adnan
    Weninger, Tim
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, 2025, 37 (05) : 2946 - 2957
  • [22] TRUE PLD vs. gate-array costs
    Beachler, RK
    COMPUTER DESIGN, 1997, : 30 - 30
  • [23] Syntax vs. semantics: A polarized approach
    Laurent, O
    THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2005, 343 (1-2) : 177 - 206
  • [24] Open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic pouch excision: unveiling the best approach for optimal outcomes
    Violante, T.
    Ferrari, D.
    Sassun, R.
    Sileo, A.
    Ng, J. C.
    Mathis, K. L.
    Cima, R. R.
    Dozois, E. J.
    Larson, D. W.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2024, 28 (01)
  • [25] A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF PESSARY VS. BEHAVIORAL THERAPY VS. COMBINED THERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE
    Richter, H. E.
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2009, 28 (07) : 816 - 817
  • [26] THE ARIZONA PLAN VS. THE ARIZONA METHOD
    Working, D. W.
    SCHOOL AND SOCIETY, 1922, 16 (398): : 175 - 179
  • [27] Laparoscopic myomectomy: Colpotomy vs. morcellation and efficacy of unipolar cautery vs. the harmonic scalpel for hemostasis.
    Ou, CS
    Harper, A
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2001, 75 (04) : 14S - 14S
  • [28] Efficacy of cephalexin two vs. three times daily vs. cefadroxil once daily for streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis
    Curtin, CD
    Casey, JR
    Murray, PC
    Cleary, CT
    Hoeger, WJ
    Marsocci, SM
    Murphy, ML
    Francis, AB
    Pichichero, ME
    CLINICAL PEDIATRICS, 2003, 42 (06) : 519 - 526
  • [29] The Impact of the Method of Gunshot Injury: War Injuries vs. Stray Bullets vs. Civilian Fighting
    Mansor, Salah
    Bodalal, Zuhir
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2015, 25 (04): : 281 - 285
  • [30] HIGH DEFINITION-COLONOSCOPY VS. ENDOCUFF VS. ENDORINGS VS. FULL-SPECTRUM ENDOSCOPY (FUSE) FOR ADENOMA DETECTION AT COLONOSCOPY: A MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    Ponugoti, Prasanna L.
    Rex, Douglas K.
    Repici, Alessandro
    Gross, Seth A.
    Hassan, Cesare
    Eckert, George
    Vemulapalli, Krishna
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 87 (06) : AB73 - AB74