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
  • [41] CONDOM DESERTS VS. CONDOM SWAMPS: AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF CONDOMS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
    Shacham, Enbal
    Schulte, Lauren
    Bloomfield, Mark
    Murphy, Ryan
    SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, 2014, 41 : S25 - S25
  • [42] Prospective, randomized comparison of strategies for administration of endoscopy satisfaction surveys: Internet vs. standard mail vs. telephone
    Harewood, G
    Wiersema, M
    Degroen, P
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 55 (05) : AB193 - AB193
  • [43] Closure of primary cesarean delivery:suture vs. staples, steroids vs. none?: A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Doyle, Nora
    Greig, Christina
    Mullin, Tiffany
    Ross, Patti Jayne
    Katz, Alan
    Mastrobattista, Joan M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 197 (06) : S37 - S37
  • [44] Sumatriptan vs. nimesulide vs. trimebutine vs. the combination of the three drugs in the acute treatment of migraine: A prospective, randomized, single-blind, cross-over study
    Krymchantowski, A. V.
    Jevoux, C. C.
    Silva, Jr A. A.
    HEADACHE, 2007, 47 (05): : 757 - 757
  • [45] Managing quality vs. measuring uncertainty in the medical laboratory
    Westgard, James O.
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2010, 48 (01) : 31 - 40
  • [46] Measuring odours in the environment vs. dispersion modelling: A review
    Capelli, Laura
    Sironi, Selena
    Del Rosso, Renato
    Guillot, Jean-Michel
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2013, 79 : 731 - 743
  • [47] Ancestral vs. Consensus vs. Polyvalent: Envelope Effects on Vaccine Efficacy in an Equine Lentiviral Attenuated Vaccine Model
    Craigo, J. K.
    Ezzelarab, C.
    Cook, S. J.
    Liu, C.
    Horohov, D.
    Issel, C. J.
    Montelaro, R. C.
    AIDS RESEARCH AND HUMAN RETROVIRUSES, 2013, 29 (11) : A33 - A34
  • [48] Estimated vs. True PSs for Controlling Baseline Covariates in RCTs
    Wyss, Richard
    Brookhart, Alan
    Poole, Charles
    Glynn, Robert J.
    Stuermer, Til
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2012, 21 : 129 - 129
  • [49] Live Working Method Comparisons Rubber Glove Work vs. Hotstick Work vs. Barehand Work
    Komaromi, Paul
    2017 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIVE MAINTENANCE (ICOLIM), 2017,
  • [50] Integral quadratic constraint approach vs. multiplier approach
    Fu, MY
    Dasgupta, S
    Soh, YC
    AUTOMATICA, 2005, 41 (02) : 281 - 287