↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hormonal and intrauterine methods for contraception for women aged 25 years and younger

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
Title
Hormonal and intrauterine methods for contraception for women aged 25 years and younger
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009805.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Krashin, Jennifer H Tang, Sheila Mody, Laureen M Lopez

Abstract

Women between the ages of 15 and 24 years have high rates of unintended pregnancy; over half of women in this age group want to avoid pregnancy. However, women under age 25 years have higher typical contraceptive failure rates within the first 12 months of use than older women. High discontinuation rates may also be a problem in this population. Concern that adolescents and young women will not find hormonal or intrauterine contraceptives acceptable or effective might deter healthcare providers from recommending these contraceptive methods. To compare the contraceptive failure (pregnancy) rates and to examine the continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraception among young women aged 25 years and younger. We searched until 4 August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hormonal or intrauterine methods of contraception in women aged 25 years and younger. Computerized databases included the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS. We also searched for current trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We considered RCTs in any language that reported the contraceptive failure rates for hormonal or intrauterine contraceptive methods, when compared with another contraceptive method, for women aged 25 years and younger. The other contraceptive method could have been another intrauterine contraceptive, another hormonal contraceptive or different dose of the same method, or a non-hormonal contraceptive. Treatment duration must have been at least three months. Eligible trials had to include the primary outcome of contraceptive failure rate (pregnancy). The secondary outcome was contraceptive continuation rate. One author conducted the primary data extraction and entered the information into Review Manager. Another author performed an independent data extraction and verified the initial entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Because of disparate interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct meta-analysis. Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 1503 women, with a mean of 301 participants. The trials compared the following contraceptives: combined oral contraceptive (COC) versus transdermal contraceptive patch, vaginal contraceptive ring, or levonorgestrel intrauterine system 20 µg/day (LNG-IUS 20); LNG-IUS 12 µg/day (LNG-IUS 12) versus LNG-IUS 16 µg/day (LNG-IUS 16); and LNG-IUS 20 versus the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD). In the trials comparing two different types of methods, the study arms did not differ significantly for contraceptive efficacy or continuation. The sample sizes were small for two of those studies. The only significant outcome was that a COC group had a higher proportion of women who discontinued for 'other personal reasons' compared with the group assigned to the LNG-IUS 20 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), which may have little clinic relevance. The trial comparing LNG-IUS 12 versus LNG-IUS 16 showed similar efficacy over one and three years. In three trials that examined different LNG-IUS, continuation was at least 75% at 6 to 36 months. We considered the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. Limitations were due to trial design or limited reporting. Different doses in the LNG-IUS did not appear to influence efficacy over three years. In another study, continuation of the LNG-IUS appeared at least as high as that for the COC. The current evidence was insufficient to compare efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods in women aged 25 years and younger.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 15%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 95 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 99 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,236,382
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,875
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,075
of 277,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.