Parity and use-effectiveness with the contraceptive sponge - PubMed
Clinical Trial
Parity and use-effectiveness with the contraceptive sponge
S L McIntyre et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Oct.
Abstract
The results of a randomized United States study indicated that the Today contraceptive sponge was less effective than the diaphragm (1-year cumulative life-table rate of 17.4 versus 12.9 pregnancies per 100 women, p = 0.01). However, this overall comparison is misleading. Using univariate and multivariate analyses to account for the effects of user characteristics we found parity to be the most important single determinant of effectiveness for users of the sponge, but parity was unimportant as a risk factor for pregnancy among diaphragm users. For nulliparous women the sponge was as effective as a physician-prescribed barrier method (13.9 for sponge, 12.8 for diaphragm, p = 0.45); however, parous women using the sponge were twice as likely to become pregnant (28.3 for sponge, 13.4 for diaphragm, p = 0.001). The effect of parity among sponge users is consistent with the results of international studies of the contraceptive sponge.
Similar articles
-
Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception.
Kuyoh MA, Toroitich-Ruto C, Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Gallo MG. Kuyoh MA, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2002(3):CD003172. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003172. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002. PMID: 12137678 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
-
Mauck C, Glover LH, Miller E, Allen S, Archer DF, Blumenthal P, Rosenzweig A, Dominik R, Sturgen K, Cooper J, Fingerhut F, Peacock L, Gabelnick HL. Mauck C, et al. Contraception. 1996 Jun;53(6):329-35. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(96)00081-9. Contraception. 1996. PMID: 8773419 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparative trial of the Today contraceptive sponge and diaphragm.
Edelman DA, McIntyre SL, Harper J. Edelman DA, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Dec 1;150(7):869-76. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(84)90465-4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984. PMID: 6095664 Clinical Trial.
-
Nonprescription vaginal contraception.
Edelman DA. Edelman DA. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1980;18(5):340-4. doi: 10.1002/j.1879-3479.1980.tb00510.x. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1980. PMID: 6110578
-
Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception.
Kuyoh MA, Toroitich-Ruto C, Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Gallo MF, Lopez LM. Kuyoh MA, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002 Jul 22;(5):CD003172. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003172. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002. PMID: 23866318 Review.
Cited by
-
Understanding contraceptive failure.
Trussell J. Trussell J. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Apr;23(2):199-209. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.11.008. Epub 2009 Feb 14. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009. PMID: 19223239 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception.
Kuyoh MA, Toroitich-Ruto C, Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Gallo MG. Kuyoh MA, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2002(3):CD003172. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003172. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002. PMID: 12137678 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.