Efficacy of contraceptive methods: A review of the literature

References

• Cibula D. Women's contraceptive practices and sexual behaviour in Europe. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008;13:362–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner MJ, Dalebout S, Condon S, et al Understanding risk: A randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:709–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Steiner MJ, Grimes DA, et al Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008: CD006964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, eds. Contraceptive technology (18th revised edition). New York: Ardent Media, 2004:773–845.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP). Guideline on clinical investigation of steroid contraceptives in women, 2005. Accessed 19 December 2008 from: http://www. emea. europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/051998en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nakajima S, Archer D, Ellman H, et al Efficacy and safety of a new 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 microg (Loestrin 24 Fe). Contraception 2007;75:16–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westhoff C, Heartwell S, Edwards S, et al Initiation of oral contraceptives using a quick start compared with a conventional start: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1270–1276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson F, Gibbons W, Portman D, et al Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2006;73:229–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahrendt H, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, et al Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception 2006;74:451–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer D, Jensen J, Johnson J, et al Evaluation of a continuous regimen of levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol: Phase 3 study results. Contraception 2006;74:439–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cibula D, Karck U, Weidenhammer H, et al Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 21-day combined oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol 20 microg and drospirenone 3 mg. Clin Drug Investig 2006;26:143–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, de Melo NR, et al Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: A 1-year randomized trial. Contraception 2005;71:176–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urdl W, Apter D, Alperstein A, et al Contraceptive efficacy, compliance and beyond: Factors related to satisfaction with once-weekly transdermal compared with oral contraception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;121:202–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachmann G, Sulak P, Sampson-Landers C, et al Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 24-day combined oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Contraception 2004;70:191–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golbs S, Domhardt R, Radowicky S, et al Clinical findings with the oral contraceptive combination ethinylestradiol/dienogest in Poland. Methods Findings Exp Clin Pharmacol 2002;24:585–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audet M, Moreau M, Koltun W, et al Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285:2347–2354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrikat J, Cronin M, Gerlinger C, et al Open, multicenter comparison of efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability of a 23-day oral contraceptive regimen with 20 microg ethinyl estradiol and 75 microg gestodene and a 21-day regimen with 20 microg ethinyl estradiol and 150 microg desogestrel. Contraception 2001;64:201–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton R, Short M, Bieber E, et al Comparison of a novel norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptive (Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo) with the oral contraceptive Loestrin Fe 1/20. Contraception 2001;63:289–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson H, Vree M, Wilpshaar J, et al Multicenter study of the efficacy, cycle control and tolerability of a phasic desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000;5:35–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huber J, Foidart J, Wuttke W, et al Efficacy and tolerability of a monophasic oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and drospirenone. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000;5:25–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaunitz A, Kaunitz AM. Efficacy, cycle control, and safety of two triphasic oral contraceptives: Cyclessa (desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol) and Ortho-Novum® 7/7/7 (norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol): A randomized clinical trial. Contraception 2000;61:295–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gestodene Study Group 324. Cycle control, safety and efficacy of a 24-day regimen of gestodene 60 μg/ethinylestradiol 15 μg and a 21-day regimen of desogestrel 150 μg/ethinylestradiol 20 μg. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999;4(Suppl. 2):17–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gestodene Study Group 322. The safety and contraceptive efficacy of a 24-day low-dose oral contraceptive regimen containing gestodene 60 μg and ethinylestradiol 15 μg. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999;4(Suppl. 2):9–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Archer D, Maheux R, DelConte A, et al Efficacy and safety of a low-dose monophasic combination oral contraceptive containing 100 microg levonorgestrel and 20 microg ethinyl estradiol (Alesse™). North American Levonorgestrel Study Group (NALSG). Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:S39–S44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrikat J, Dusterberg B, Ruebig A, et al Comparison of efficacy, cycle control, and tolerability of two low-dose oral contraceptives in a multicenter clinical study. Contraception 1999;60:269–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hite R, Bannemerschult R, Fox-Kuchenbecker P, et al Large observational trial of a new low-dose oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 100 micrograms levonorgestrel (Miranova®) in Germany. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999;4:7–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Mircette Study Group. An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:S2–S8.
   Google Scholar
• Zahradnik H, Goldberg J, Andreas J, et al Efficacy and safety of the new antiandrogenic oral contraceptive Belara. Contraception 1998;57:103–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer D, Maheux R, DelConte A, et al A new low-dose monophasic combination oral contraceptive (Alesse®) with levonorgestrel 100 micrograms and ethinyl estradiol 20 micrograms. North American Levonorgestrel Study Group (NALSG). Contraception 1997;55:139–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bannemerschult R, Hanker J, Wunsch C, et al A multicenter, uncontrolled clinical investigation of the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, and safety of a new low dose oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol and 100 micrograms levonorgestrel over six treatment cycles. Contraception 1997;56:285–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dusterberg B, Ellman H, Muller U, et al A three-year clinical investigation into efficacy, cycle control and tolerability of a new low-dose monophasic oral contraceptive containing gestodene. Gynecol Endocrinol 1996;10:33–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notelovitz M. Contraceptive efficacy and safety of a monophasic oral contraceptive containing 150 micrograms desogestrel and 30 micrograms ethinyl estradiol: United States clinical experience using a ‘Sunday start’ approach. Fertil Steril 1995;64:261–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on IUD and Hormonal Contraceptives. Improved utilization of spacing methods – intrauterine devices (IUDs) and low-dose combined oral contraceptives (OCs) – through re-orientation training for improving quality of services. Contraception 1994;50:215–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brill K, Schnitker J, Albring M. Clinical experience with a modern low-dose gestodene-containing oral contraceptive in adolescents. Adv Contracept 1994;10:237–247.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bruyniks N, Kovacs L, Rakoczi I. Multicenter study in Hungary with a 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol- and 150 micrograms desogestrel-containing monophasic oral contraceptive. Adv Contracept 1994;10:175–185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shoupe D. Multicenter randomized comparative trial of two low-dose triphasic combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or norethindrone. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:679–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akerlund M, Rode A, Westergaard J. Comparative profiles of reliability, cycle control and side effects of two oral contraceptive formulations containing 150 micrograms desogestrel and either 30 micrograms or 20 micrograms ethinyl oestradiol. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:832–838.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Darney P. Safety and efficacy of a triphasic oral contraceptive containing desogestrel: Results of three multicenter trials. Contraception 1993;48:323–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunson T, McLaurin V, Israngkura B, et al A comparative study of two low-dose combined oral contraceptives: Results from a multicenter trial. Contraception 1993;48:109–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunson T, McLaurin V, Aguayo E, et al A multicenter comparative trial of triphasic and monophasic, low-dose combined oral contraceptives. Contraception 1993;47:515–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauthier A, Upmalis D, Dain MP. Clinical evaluation of a new triphasic oral contraceptive: norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992;156:27–32.
   Google Scholar
• London R, Chapdelaine A, Upmalis D, et al Comparative contraceptive efficacy and mechanism of action of the norgestimate-containing triphasic oral contraceptive. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992;156:9–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runnebaum B, Grunwald K, Rabe T. The efficacy and tolerability of norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol (250 micrograms of norgestimate/35 micrograms of ethinyl estradiol): Results of an open, multicenter study of 59,701 women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1963–1968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber-Diehl F, Unger R, Lachnit U. Triphasic combination of ethinyl estradiol and gestodene. Long-term clinical trial. Contraception 1992;46:19–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brill K, Norpoth T, Schnitker J, et al Clinical experience with a modern low-dose oral contraceptive in almost 100,000 users. Contraception 1991;43:101–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieben T, van Beek A, Coelingh Bennink HJ, et al Multicentre study with a new biphasic oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and desogestrel. Report on efficacy, cycle control and adverse experiences with special emphasis on blood pressure and weight. Arzneimittel-Forschung 1991;41:996–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lammers P, op ten Berg M. Phase III clinical trial with a new oral contraceptive containing 150 micrograms desogestrel and 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:497–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaurin V, Dunson B, Dunson T, et al A comparative study of 35 mcg and 50 mcg combined oral contraceptives: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception 1991;44:489–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renier M, Buytaert P. Open prospective multicenter trial with a new monophasic contraceptive combination containing gestodene. Contraception 1991;43:413–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weng L, Xu D, Zheng H, et al Clinical experience with triphasic oral contraceptive (Triquilar) in 527 women in China. Contraception 1991;43:263–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corson S, Corson SL. Efficacy and clinical profile of a new oral contraceptive containing norgestimate. U.S. clinical trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990;152:25–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Golbs S, Donhardt R, Presl J, et al Clinical findings with the oral contraceptive combination ethinylestradiol/dienogest in the Czech Republic. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2002;24:689–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collaborative Study Group on the Desogestrel-containing Progestogen-only Pill. A double-blind study comparing the contraceptive efficacy, acceptability and safety of two progestogen-only pills containing desogestrel 75 μg/day or levonorgestrel 30 μg/day. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1998;3:169–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smallwood G, Meador M, Lenihan J, et al Efficacy and safety of a transdermal contraceptive system. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:799–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumen FJ, Apter D, Mulders TM, et al Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod 2001;16:469–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on Hormonal Contraception. Phase III clinical trial with Norplant II (two covered rods): Report on five years of use. Contraception 1993;48:120–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akhter H, Dunson T, Amatya R, et al A five-year clinical evaluation of Norplant contraceptive subdermal implants in Bangladeshi acceptors. Contraception 1993;47:569–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu S, Sivin I, Du M, et al Effectiveness of Norplant implants through seven years: a large-scale study in China. Contraception 1995;52:99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu S, Du M, Zhang L, et al A 5-year evaluation of NORPLANT contraceptive implants in China. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:673–678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu S, Du M, Zhang L, et al A five-year evaluation of NORPLANT II implants in China. Contraception 1994;50:27–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Viegas O, Campodonico I, et al Clinical performance of a new two-rod levonorgestrel contraceptive implant: a three-year randomized study with Norplant implants as controls. Contraception 1997;55:73–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Carmen Cravioto M, Alvarado G, Canto-de-Cetina T, et al A multicenter comparative study on the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the contraceptive subdermal implants Norplant and Norplant-II. Contraception 1997;55:359–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Mishell D, Jr., Darney P, et al Levonorgestrel capsule implants in the United States: a 5-year study. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:337–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Campodonico I, Kiriwat O, et al The performance of levonorgestrel rod and Norplant contraceptive implants: A 5 year randomized study. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3371–3378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Alvarez F, Mishell D, Jr., et al Contraception with two levonorgestrel rod implants. A 5-year study in the United States and Dominican Republic. Contraception 1998;58:275–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxatto H, Urbancsek J, Massai R, et al A multicentre efficacy and safety study of the single contraceptive implant Implanon. Implanon Study Group. Hum Reprod 1999;14:976–981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Mishell D, Jr., Diaz S, et al Prolonged effectiveness of Norplant® capsule implants: a 7-year study. Contraception 2000;61:187–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxatto H, Croxatto HB. Clinical profile of Implanon: A single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000;5(Suppl. 2):21–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meirik O, Farley T, Sivin I, et al Safety and efficacy of levonorgestrel implant, intrauterine device, and sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:539–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores J, Balderas M, Bonilla M, et al Clinical experience and acceptability of the etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implant. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;90:228–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain J, Jakimiuk A, Bode F, et al Contraceptive efficacy and safety of DMPA-SC. Contraception 2004;70:269–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman L, Shulman LP. Controlled trial with a monthly combination injectable contraceptive in the USA. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001;15:15–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassol S, Alvarado A, Celis C, et al Latin American experience with two low-dose oral contraceptives containing 30 microg ethinylestradiol/75 microg gestodene and 20 microg ethinylestradiol/150 microg desogestrel. Contraception 2000;62:131–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutinho E, Spinola P, Tomaz G, et al Efficacy, acceptability, and clinical effects of a low-dose injectable contraceptive combination of dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and estradiol enanthate. Contraception 2000;61:277–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danli S, Qingxiang S, Guowei S. A multicentered clinical trial of the long-acting injectable contraceptive Depo Provera in Chinese women. Contraception 2000;62:15–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan E, el-Nahal N, el-Hussinie M, et al Once-a-month injectable contraceptives, Cyclofem and Mesigyna, in Egypt. Efficacy, causes of discontinuation, and side effects. Contraception 1999;60:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaunitz A, Garceau R, Cromie M, et al Comparative safety, efficacy, and cycle control of Lunelle monthly contraceptive injection (medroxyprogesterone acetate and estradiol cypionate injectable suspension) and Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 oral contraceptive (norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol triphasic). Lunelle Study Group. Contraception 1999;60:179–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garza-Flores J, Moraks del Olmo A, Fuziwara J, et al Introduction of Cyclofem once-a-month injectable contraceptive in Mexico. Contraception 1998;58:7–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall P, Bahamondes L, Diaz J, et al Introductory study of the once-a-month, injectable contraceptive Cyclofem in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru. Contraception 1997;56:353–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Poindexter A 3rd, Bateman L, et al Experiences of injectable contraceptive users in an urban setting. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:227–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sang G, Shao Q, Ge R, et al A multicentred phase III comparative clinical trial of Mesigyna, Cyclofem and Injectable No. 1 given monthly by intramuscular injection to Chinese women. I. Contraceptive efficacy and side effects. Contraception 1995;51:167–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Kesseru E, Aydinlik S, Etchepareborda J, et al Multicentred, phase III clinical trial of norethisterone enanthate 50 mg plus estradiol valerate 5 mg as a monthly injectable contraceptive; final three-year report. Contraception 1994;50:329–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandi S, Hadjar L, Prihyugiharto T, et al Introductory trial of the once-a-month injectable contraceptive, Cyclofem, in Indonesia. Adv Contracept 1993;9:33–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• von Kesseru E, Aydinlik S, Etchepareborda J, et al A multicentred, two-year, phase III clinical trial of norethisterone enanthate 50 mg plus estradiol valerate 5 mg as a monthly injectable contraceptive. Contraception 1991;44:589–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutinho EM, Spinola P, Barbosa I, et al Multicenter, double-blind, comparative clinical study on the efficacy and acceptability of a monthly injectable contraceptive combination of 150 mg dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and 10 mg estradiol enanthate compared to a monthly injectable contraceptive combination of 90 mg dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and 6 mg estradiol enanthate. Contraception 1997;55:175–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on Hormonal Contraception. A multicentre phase III comparative study of two hormonal contraceptive preparations NET-OEN (50 mg) + E2 valerate (5 mg) given every month and NET-OEN (200 mg) given every 2 months as intramuscular injection–a report of 12-month study. Contraception 1990;42:179–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugan T, Skjeldestad F, Halvorsen L, Kahn H. A randomized trial on the clinical performance of Nova T380 and Gyne T380 Slimline copper IUDs. Contraception 2007;75:171–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox M, Tripp J, Blacksell S, et al Clinical performance of the Nova T380 intrauterine device in routine use by the UK Family Planning and Reproductive Health Research Network: 5-year report. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002;28:69–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez F, Gimenez E, Hernandez G, et al Experience with GyneFIX insertions in Spain: Favorable acceptance of the intrauterine contraceptive implant with some limitations. Contraception 2002;66:315–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dou JL, Zhang Y, Zhang CY, et al Clinical comparative study of GyneFix and ML Cu375 intrauterine devices. Reprod Contracept 2001;12:181–185.
   Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Diaz J, Petta C, et al Comparison of the performances of TCu380A and TCu380S IUDs up to five years. Adv Contracept 1999;15:275–281.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinprayoon D, Gilmore C, Farr G, et al Twelve-month comparative multicenter study of the TCu 380A and ML 250 intrauterine devices in Bangkok, Thailand. Contraception 1998;58:201–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme. Long-term reversible contraception. Twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception 1997;56:341–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Diaz S, Croxatto H, et al Contraceptives for lactating women: A comparative trial of a progesterone-releasing vaginal ring and the copper T 380A IUD. Contraception 1997;55:225–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg MJ, Foldesy R, Mishell DR, Jr., et al Performance of the TCu380A and Cu-Fix IUDs in an international randomized trail. Contraception 1996;53:197–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank: IUD Research Group. The TCu 380A IUD and the frameless IUD ‘the FlexiGard’: Interim three-year data from an international multicenter trial. UNDP, UNFPA, and WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Contraception 1995;52:77–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: A randomized comparative trial. Contraception 1994;49:56–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction: IUD Research Group. A randomized multicentre trial of the Multiload 375 and TCu380A IUDs in parous women: Three-year results. Contraception 1994;49:543–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr G, Amatya R. Contraceptive efficacy of the Copper T 380A and Copper T 200 intrauterine devices: Results from a comparative clinical trial in six developing countries. Contraception 1994;49:231–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr G, Amatya R. Contraceptive efficacy of the Copper T380A and the Multiload Cu250 IUD in three developing countries. Adv Contracept 1994;10:137–149.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Farr G, Amatya R, Betancourt J, et al Clinical performance of the TCu 380A and TCu 220C IUDs in four developing country family planning clinics. Contraception 1994;50:417–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petta C, Amatya R, Farr G, et al Clinical evaluation of the TCu 380A IUD at six Latin American centers. Contraception 1994;50:17–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril 1994;61:70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Family Planning Research Network. A multicenter study of the clinical performance of the Ortho Gyne-T380 Slimline intrauterine device in routine use in general practice and family planning clinics. Adv Contracept 1993;9:59–64.
   Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Diaz J, Alvarez F, et al Four-year experience in a randomized study of the Gyne T 380 Slimline and the Standard Gyne T 380 intrauterine copper devices. Contraception 1993;47:37–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu ZQ. Comparison of two uterine cavity-shaped IUDs. Contraception 1992;46:221–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz J, Pinto Neto A, Diaz M, et al Long-term evaluation of the clinical performance of the TCu200B and the TCu380A in Campinas, Brazil. Adv Contracept 1992;8:67–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson J, Wilson JC. A New Zealand randomized comparative study of three IUDs (Nova-T, MLCu375, MLAgCu250): 1-, 2- and 3-year results. Adv Contracept 1992;8:153–159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sastrawinata S, Farr G, Prihadi S, et al A comparative clinical trial of the TCu 380A, Lippes Loop D and Multiload Cu 375 IUDs in Indonesia. Contraception 1991;44:141–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Stern J, Coutinho E, et al Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDS. Contraception 1991;44:473–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Diaz S, Pavez M, et al Two-year comparative trial of the Gyne T* 380 Slimline and Gyne T* 380 intrauterine copper devices. Contraception 1991;44:481–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toivonen J, Luukkainen T, Allonen H. Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: Three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:261–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, el Mahgoub S, McCarthy T, et al Long-term contraception with the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the copper T 380Ag intrauterine devices: a five-year randomized study. Contraception 1990;42:361–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Shaaban M, Odlind V, et al A randomized trial of the Gyne T 380 and Gyne T 380 Slimline Intrauterine Copper devices. Contraception 1990;42:379–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction: Task Force on the Safety and Efficacy of Fertility Regulating Methods. The TCu380A, TCu220C, Multiload 250 and Nova T IUDS at 3, 5 and 7 years of use–results from three randomized multicentre trials. Contraception 1990;42:141–158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faundes A, Alvarez F, Diaz J. A Latin American experience with levonorgestrel IUD. Ann Med 1993;25:149–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahteenmaki P, Bardin C, Elomaa K, et al Selection and performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;164:69–74.
   Google Scholar
• Cox M, Tripp J, Blacksell S, et al Clinical performance of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in routine use by the UK Family Planning and Reproductive Health Research Network: 5-year report. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002;28:73–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backman T, Rauramo I, Huhtala S, et al Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:50–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner M, Dominik R, Rountree R, et al Contraceptive effectiveness of a polyurethane condom and a latex condom: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:539–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frezieres RG, Walsh TL, Nelson AL, et al Evaluation of the efficacy of a polyurethane condom: Results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Fam Plann Perspect 1999;31:81–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walsh TL, Frezieres RG, Peacock K, et al Evaluation of the efficacy of a nonlatex condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2003;35:79–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauck C, Callahan M, Weiner D, et al A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of FemCap, a new vaginal barrier contraceptive, and the Ortho All-Flex diaphragm. The FemCap Investigators' Group. Contraception 1999;60:71–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnhart K, Rosenberg M, MacKay H, et al Contraceptive efficacy of a novel spermicidal microbicide used with a diaphragm: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:577–586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira AE, Araujo MJ, Regina CH, et al Effectiveness of the diaphragm, used continuously, without spermicide. Contraception 1993;48:29–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Strickler J, Vaughan B. Contraceptive efficacy of the diaphragm, the sponge and the cervical cap. Fam Plann Perspect 1993;25:100–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Che Y, Cleland J, Ali M, et al Periodic abstinence in developing countries: an assessment of failure rates and consequences. Contraception 2004;69:15–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arevalo M, Jennings V, Sinai I, et al Efficacy of a new method of family planning: The Standard Days Method. Contraception 2002;65:333–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European Natural Family Planning Study Groups. European multicenter study of natural family planning (1989–1995): Efficacy and drop-out. Adv Contracept 1999;15:69–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonnar J, Flynn A, Freundl G, et al Personal hormone monitoring for contraception. Br J Fam Plann 1999;24:128–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P, Godehardt E, et al Retrospective clinical trial of contraceptive effectiveness of the electronic fertility indicator Ladycomp/Babycomp. Adv Contracept 1998;14:97–108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu J, Yan J, Fan D, et al Billings natural family planning in Shanghai, China. Adv Contracept 1994;10:195–204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L. Contraceptive failure of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence. Fam Plann Perspect 1990;22:65–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thapa S, Wonga MV, Lampe PG, et al Efficacy of three variations of periodic abstinence for family planning in Indonesia. Stud Fam Plann 1990;21:327–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Task Force on Methods for the Natural Regulation of Fertility. The World Health Organization multinational study of breast-feeding and lactational amenorrhea. III. Pregnancy during breast-feeding. Fertil Steril 1999;72:431–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labbok M, Hight-Laukaran V, Peterson A, et al Multicenter study of the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM): I. Efficacy, duration, and implications for clinical application. Contraception 1997;55:327–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez A, Valdes V. Santiago Breastfeeding Promotion Program: Preliminary results of an intervention study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2039–2044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, et al The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1161–1168; discussion 1168–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokal D, Gates D, Amatya R, et al Two randomized controlled trials comparing the tubal ring and Filshie clip for tubal sterilization. Fertil Steril 2000;74:525–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dominik R, Gates D, Sokal D, et al Two randomized controlled trials comparing the Hulka and Filshie Clips for tubal sterilization. Contraception 2000;62:169–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer DF, Cullins V, Creasy GW, et al The impact of improved compliance with a weekly contraceptive transdermal system (Ortho Evra) on contraceptive efficacy. Contraception 2004;69:189–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Grumme-Strawn L. Further analysis of contraceptive failure of the ovulation method. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2054–2059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J. Methodological pitfalls in the analysis of contraceptive failure. Stat Med 1991;10:201–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieben T, Roumen F, Apter D, et al Efficacy, cycle control and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:585–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Trussell J, Rodriguez G, et al Contraceptive failure rates in France: Results from a population-based survey. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2422–2427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinger JC, Assmann A, Heinemann LAJ. The impact of obesity on the contraceptive reliability of oral contraceptives. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006;15:S140–S141.
   Google Scholar
• Rice CF, Killick SR, Dieben T, et al A comparison of the inhibition of ovulation achieved by desogestrel 75 micrograms and levonorgestrel 30 micrograms daily. Hum Reprod 1999;14:982–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Clinical Effectiveness Unit. FSRH Guidance (November 2008) Progestogen-only Pills. Accessed 30 July 2009 from: http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/default.asp?Section=Publications&SubSection=ClinicalGuidance2
   Google Scholar
• Food & Drug Administration. Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs-General meeting. Accessed 19 December 2009 from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4274b1-01-FDA.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gerlinger C, Endrikat J, van der Meulen EA, et al Recommendation for confidence interval and sample size calculation for the Pearl Index. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2003;8:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B, et al Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception 2008;77:10–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skouby SO. Contraceptive use and behavior in the 21st century: A comprehensive study across five European countries. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2004;9:57–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serfaty D. Oral contraceptive compliance during adolescence. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1997;816:422–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey MP, Vanable PA, Senn TE, et al Recruiting patients from a sexually transmitted disease clinic to sexual risk reduction workshops: are monetary incentives necessary? J Public Health Manag Pract 2005;11:516–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuffrida A, Torgenson DJ. Should we pay the patient? Review of financial incentives to enhance patient compliance. BMJ 1997;315:703–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar