SynthesisPloS one2021
Peri-abortion contraceptive counseling: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-abortion contraception, an opportunity for male partners and male contraception.Contraception · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effects of peri-abortion contraceptive counseling interventions.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of different types of peri-abortion contraceptive counseling interventions and were published as original papers in scientific journals. The literature search was performed in June 2021 in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Google Scholar; without restrictions in language or publication date. Two independent authors identified studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted the data. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Whenever possible, meta-analyses were performed. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020187354).
resultsEleven RCTs were eligible for inclusion (published from 2004 to 2017), from which nine compared enhanced versus standard counseling. Pooled estimates showed that, compared to standard counseling, enhanced counseling was associated with a higher incidence of effective contraceptive use (>3 months) (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.16), although no significant difference was found in the incidence of long-acting reversible contraceptive use (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.68-2.29), contraceptive uptake (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15), and obstetric event occurrence (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47). Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. In addition, two studies compared contraceptive counseling provided by physicians versus that provided by non-physicians, which did not show significant differences.
conclusionsEnhanced contraceptive counseling may favor effective contraceptive use but may not affect the rate of obstetric event occurrence. Also, the studies did not find a difference in the effects of counseling interventions given by different providers. Since evidence certainty was very low, future well-designed RCTs are needed to make informed decisions. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020187354).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.