Suppr超能文献

双相口服避孕药与单相口服避孕药用于避孕的比较。

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

作者信息

Van Vliet H, Grimes D A, Helmerhorst F, Schulz K

机构信息

Family Health International, P. O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD002032. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002032.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare biphasic oral contraceptives with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (a) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective in preventing pregnancy than are monophasic oral contraceptives, and (b) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side effects, give poorer cycle control, and have lower continuation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched computerized databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Popline and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Additionally we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the U.S.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic oral contraceptive with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodological quality using the Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the study methods and outcomes. We entered the data in RevMan 3.1, imported the data into RevMan 4.1, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding, and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. Percival-Smith et al. (1990) examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (norethindrone 500 mcg/ethinyl estradiol 35 mcg for ten days, followed by norethindrone 1000 mcg/ethinyl estradiol 35 mcg for eleven days; Ortho 10/11) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (norethindrone acetate 1500 mcg/ethinyl estradiol 30 mcg daily; Loestrin). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial, and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.

摘要

目的

比较双相口服避孕药与单相口服避孕药在避孕效果、月经周期控制以及因副作用停药方面的差异。我们预先设定的假设为:(a)双相口服避孕药在预防妊娠方面的效果不如单相口服避孕药;(b)双相口服避孕药会引起更多副作用,月经周期控制较差,持续使用率较低。

检索策略

我们检索了计算机化数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE、Popline和Cochrane对照试验注册库。此外,我们还检索了所有潜在相关文章和书籍章节的参考文献列表。我们还联系了欧洲和美国相关研究的作者以及制药公司。

入选标准

我们纳入了比较任何双相口服避孕药与任何单相口服避孕药用于预防妊娠的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

我们检查了在各种文献检索中找到的可能纳入的研究,并使用Cochrane指南评估其方法学质量。我们联系了所有纳入研究以及可能的随机研究的作者,以获取有关研究方法和结果的补充信息。我们将数据录入RevMan 3.1,将数据导入RevMan 4.1,并计算经间出血、无撤退性出血以及因经间出血导致研究停药发生率的Peto比值比。

主要结果

仅一项质量有限的试验比较了一种双相制剂和一种单相制剂。珀西瓦尔 - 史密斯等人(1990年)研究了一种双相避孕药(炔诺酮500微克/炔雌醇35微克,服用十天,随后是炔诺酮1000微克/炔雌醇35微克,服用十一天;Ortho 10/11)的533个使用者周期,以及一种单相避孕药(醋酸炔诺酮1500微克/炔雌醇30微克,每日服用;Loestrin)的481个使用者周期。该研究发现,双相和单相口服避孕药在经间出血、闭经以及因经间出血导致的研究停药方面无显著差异。

综述作者结论

由于仅识别出一项试验,该试验存在方法学缺陷,且缺乏意外妊娠的数据,因此结论有限。然而,该试验发现所研究的双相和单相制剂在出血模式上无重要差异。由于双相避孕药不存在明确的理论依据,且单相避孕药有大量证据支持,故更倾向于选择单相避孕药。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验