↓ Skip to main content

Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008452.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Alissa Bernholc, Mario Chen, Thomas W Grey, Conrad Otterness, Carolyn Westhoff, Alison Edelman, Frans M Helmerhorst

Abstract

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or to greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives include oral contraceptives (OCs), injectables, implants, hormonal intrauterine contraception (IUC), the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity, the public health impact of any effect on contraceptive efficacy could be substantial. To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing pregnancy among women who are overweight or obese versus women with a lower body mass index (BMI) or weight. Until 4 August 2016, we searched for studies in PubMed (MEDLINE), CENTRAL, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find additional published or unpublished studies. All study designs were eligible. The study could have examined any type of hormonal contraceptive. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive methods used. The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2)). Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Where available, we included life-table rates. We also used unadjusted pregnancy rates, relative risk (RR), or rate ratio when those were the only results provided. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). With 8 studies added in this update, 17 met our inclusion criteria and had a total of 63,813 women. We focus here on 12 studies that provided high, moderate, or low quality evidence. Most did not show a higher pregnancy risk among overweight or obese women. Of five COC studies, two found BMI to be associated with pregnancy but in different directions. With an OC containing norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (EE), pregnancy risk was higher for overweight women, i.e. with BMI ≥ 25 versus those with BMI < 25 (reported relative risk 2.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). In contrast, a trial using an OC with levonorgestrel and EE reported a Pearl Index of 0 for obese women (BMI ≥ 30) versus 5.59 for nonobese women (BMI < 30). The same trial tested a transdermal patch containing levonorgestrel and EE. Within the patch group, obese women in the "treatment-compliant" subgroup had a higher reported Pearl Index than nonobese women (4.63 versus 2.15). Of five implant studies, two that examined the six-capsule levonorgestrel implant showed differences in pregnancy by weight. One study showed higher weight was associated with higher pregnancy rate in years 6 and 7 combined (reported P < 0.05). In the other, pregnancy rates differed in year 5 among the lower weight groups only (reported P < 0.01) and did not involve women weighing 70 kg or more.Analysis of data from other contraceptive methods indicated no association of pregnancy with overweight or obesity. These included depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (subcutaneous), levonorgestrel IUC, the two-rod levonorgestrel implant, and the etonogestrel implant. The evidence generally did not indicate an association between higher BMI or weight and effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, we found few studies for most contraceptive methods. Studies using BMI, rather than weight alone, can provide information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when used according to the recommended regimen.We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low for the objectives of this review. More recent reports provided evidence of varying quality, while the quality was generally low for older studies. For many trials the quality would be higher for their original purpose rather than the non-randomized comparisons here. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI or contraceptive effectiveness. Newer studies included a greater proportion of overweight or obese women, which helps in examining effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 22%
Unspecified 30 22%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Other 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 40%
Unspecified 40 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 16 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,410,163
of 13,629,963 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,979
of 10,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,637
of 262,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,629,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 262,477 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 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.