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
  • [31] Tinzaparin vs. Nadroparin Safety and Efficacy in Neurosurgery
    Wilhelmy, Florian
    Hantsche, Annika
    Gaier, Michael
    Kasper, Johannes
    Fehrenbach, Michael Karl
    Oesemann, Rene
    Meixensberger, Jurgen
    Lindner, Dirk
    NEUROLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 13 (02) : 202 - 206
  • [32] High altitude headache: Efficacy of acetaminophen vs. ibuprofen in a randomized, controlled trial
    Harris, NS
    Wenzel, RP
    Thomas, SH
    JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2003, 24 (04): : 383 - 387
  • [33] Efficacy of Combined vs. Monotherapy in Oral Lichen Planus: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Rodriguez-Galvez, Rocio
    Tvarijonaviciute, Asta
    Peres-Rubio, Camila
    Lopez-Jornet, Pia
    ORAL DISEASES, 2024,
  • [34] A Randomized Control Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Antiandrogen Monotherapy: Flutamide vs. Bicalutamide
    Yasushi Nakai
    Nobumichi Tanaka
    Satoshi Anai
    Makito Miyake
    Yoshihiro Tatsumi
    Kiyohide Fujimoto
    Hormones and Cancer, 2015, 6 : 161 - 167
  • [35] A Randomized Control Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Antiandrogen Monotherapy: Flutamide vs. Bicalutamide
    Nakai, Yasushi
    Tanaka, Nobumichi
    Anai, Satoshi
    Miyake, Makito
    Tatsumi, Yoshihiro
    Fujimoto, Kiyohide
    HORMONES & CANCER, 2015, 6 (04): : 161 - 167
  • [36] Bleeding patterns after immediate vs. conventional oral contraceptive initiation: a randomized, controlled trial
    Westhoff, C
    Morroni, C
    Kerns, J
    Murphy, PA
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2003, 79 (02) : 322 - 329
  • [37] Efficacy vs. effectiveness in psychiatric research - Reply
    Hogarty, GE
    PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 1998, 49 (06) : 834 - 835
  • [38] Allergen immunotherapy in the elderly - efficacy vs. risk
    Bozek, Andrzej
    ALERGOLOGIA POLSKA-POLISH JOURNAL OF ALLERGOLOGY, 2015, 2 (02) : 70 - 72
  • [39] Contraceptive Patch and Vaginal Ring vs. Combined Oral Contraceptives
    Meyer, Suzanne
    AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2009, 80 (03) : 232 - 233
  • [40] Direct anterior approach vs. SuperPATH vs. conventional approaches in total hip replacement: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Ramadanov, Nikolai
    Bueschges, Simon
    Liu, Kuiliang
    Lazaru, Philip
    Marintschev, Ivan
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2021, 107 (08)