Search PubMed⌕ 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↗
PubMed1999

Measurement error in epidemiology: the design of validation studies I: univariate situation.

It is becoming standard practice in epidemiology to adjust relative risk estimates to remove the bias caused by non-differential errors in the exposure measurement. Estimation of the correction factor is often based on a validation study incorporating repeated measures of exposure, which are assumed to be independent. This assumption is difficult to verify and often likely to be false. We examine the effect of departures from this assumption on the correction factor estimate, and explore the design of validation studies using two or even three different types of measurement of exposure, where assumption of independence between the measures may be more realistic. The value of good biomarker measures of exposure is demonstrated even if they are feasible to use only in a validation study.

Bias↗