Efficacy and side-effects profile of the ethinylestradiol and etonogestrel contraceptive vaginal ring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Frost JJ, Lindberg LD. Reasons for using contraception: perspectives of US women seeking care at specialized family planning clinics. Contraception. 2013;87:465–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumen FJ, Apter D, Mulders TMT, 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
• Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Meehan TE. Use and misuse of oral contraceptives: risk indicators for poor pill taking and discontinuation. Contraception. 1995;51:283–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF, et al. Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD003552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available from: www.Cochrane-handbook.org
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, The PRISMA Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mansour D, Inki P, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Efficacy of contraceptive methods: a review of the literature. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15:4–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiegratz I, Thaler CJ. Hormonal contraception-what kind, when, and for whom? Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:495–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahrendt HJ, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception. 2006;74:451–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bustillos-Alamilla E, Zepeda-Zaragoza J, Hernández-Ruiz MA, et al. Anticoncepción con hormonales combinados en ciclos extendidos artificialmente. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2010;78:37–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Duijkers I, Killick S, Bigrigg A, et al. A comparative study on the effects of a contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing® and an oral contraceptive on carbohydrate metabolism and adrenal and thyroid function. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2004;9:131–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elaut E, Buysse A, De Sutter P, et al. Relation of androgen receptor sensitivity and mood to sexual desire in hormonal contraception users. Contraception. 2012;85:470–479.
   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
• Sabatini R, Cagiano R. Comparison profiles of cycle control, side effects and sexual satisfaction of three hormonal contraceptives. Contraception. 2006;74:220–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart FH, Brown BA, Raine TR, et al. Adolescent and young women's experience with the vaginal ring and oral contraceptive pills. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007; 20:345–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veres S, Miller L, Burington B. A comparison between the vaginal ring and oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:555–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg E, Merki-Feld GS, McGeechan K, et al. Randomized comparison of bleeding patterns in women using a combined contraceptive vaginal ring or a low-dose combined oral contraceptive on a menstrually signaled regimen. Contraception. 2015;91:121–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westhoff C, Osborne LM, Schafer JE, et al. Bleeding patterns after immediate initiation of an oral compared with a vaginal hormonal contraceptive. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilliam ML, Neustadt A, Kozloski M, et al. Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:503–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Gupta M, Kriplani A, et al. Comparison of combined hormonal vaginal ring with ultralow-dose combined oral contraceptive pills in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a pilot study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36:71–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mohamed AM, El-Sherbiny WS, Mostafa WA. Combined contraceptive ring versus combined oral contraceptive (30-μg ethinylestradiol and 3-mg drospirenone). Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;114:145–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddsson K, Leifels-Fischer B, Wiel-Masson D, et al. Superior cycle control with a contraceptive vaginal ring compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 μg ethinylestradiol and 150 μg levonorgestrel: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:557–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkind-Hirsch KE, Darensbourg C, Ogden B, et al. Contraceptive vaginal ring use for women has less adverse metabolic effects than an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2007;76:348–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitruk-Ware R. New progestagens for contraceptive use. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:169–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lete I, Doval JL, Pérez-Campos E, et al. Self-described impact of noncompliance among users of a combined hormonal contraceptive method. Contraception. 2008;77:276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endrikat J, Gerlinger C, Plettig K, et al. A meta-analysis on the correlation between ovarian activity and the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding during low-dose oral contraceptive use. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2003;17:107–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulders TM, Dieben TO. Use of the novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring NuvaRing for ovulation inhibition. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:865–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJM, Alnabawy AKM, et al. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72:168–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy PA, Brixner D. Hormonal contraceptive discontinuation patterns according to formulation: investigation of associations in an administrative claims database. Contraception. 2008;77:257–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieben TO, Roumen FJ, Apter D. 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
• Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar