左炔诺孕酮可能仍是最具成本效益的口服紧急避孕方法。 - Suppr

Suppr

超能文献

LNG may still be the most cost-effective oral emergency contraception method.

作者信息

Pittrof Rudger, Sauer Ulrike, Ikram Palwasha

出版信息

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011 Apr;37(2):121-2; author reply 122-3. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0070.

DOI:10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0070

PMID:21454278

Abstract

摘要

相似文献

LNG may still be the most cost-effective oral emergency contraception method.

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011 Apr;37(2):121-2; author reply 122-3. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0070.

Is it worth paying more for emergency hormonal contraception? The cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg.

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010 Oct;36(4):197-201. doi: 10.1783/147118910793048656.

The price of emergency contraception in the United States: what is the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus single-dose levonorgestrel?

Contraception. 2013 Mar;87(3):385-90. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.034. Epub 2012 Oct 4.

Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Contraception. 2019 Sep;100(3):222-227. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.004. Epub 2019 May 16.

Cost-effectiveness of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills: probably not.

Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):504. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.11.013. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Towards more effective emergency contraception?

Lancet. 2010 Feb 13;375(9714):527-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60146-8.

Further experience with quingestanol acetate as a postcoital oral contraceptive.

Contraception. 1974 Mar;9(3):221-5. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(74)90013-4.

Ulipristal acetate: review of the efficacy and safety of a newly approved agent for emergency contraception.

Clin Ther. 2012 Jan;34(1):24-36. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.012. Epub 2011 Dec 9.

Response to letter to the editor.

Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):504-5. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.11.014. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Ulipristal acetate: the newest emergency contraceptive.

Nurs Womens Health. 2012 Aug-Sep;16(4):331-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-486X.2012.01752.x.

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

相似文献

LNG may still be the most cost-effective oral emergency contraception method.

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011 Apr;37(2):121-2; author reply 122-3. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0070.

Is it worth paying more for emergency hormonal contraception? The cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg.

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010 Oct;36(4):197-201. doi: 10.1783/147118910793048656.

The price of emergency contraception in the United States: what is the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus single-dose levonorgestrel?

Contraception. 2013 Mar;87(3):385-90. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.034. Epub 2012 Oct 4.

Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Contraception. 2019 Sep;100(3):222-227. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.004. Epub 2019 May 16.

Cost-effectiveness of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills: probably not.

Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):504. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.11.013. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Towards more effective emergency contraception?

Lancet. 2010 Feb 13;375(9714):527-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60146-8.

Further experience with quingestanol acetate as a postcoital oral contraceptive.

Contraception. 1974 Mar;9(3):221-5. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(74)90013-4.

Ulipristal acetate: review of the efficacy and safety of a newly approved agent for emergency contraception.

Clin Ther. 2012 Jan;34(1):24-36. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.012. Epub 2011 Dec 9.

Response to letter to the editor.

Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):504-5. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.11.014. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Ulipristal acetate: the newest emergency contraceptive.

Nurs Womens Health. 2012 Aug-Sep;16(4):331-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-486X.2012.01752.x.