↓ Skip to main content

Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynley A Cook, Kavita Nanda, David A Grimes, Laureen M Lopez

Abstract

The diaphragm is usually used with a spermicide. However, some practitioners have suggested that spermicides offer no additional contraceptive protection and have advocated alternative guidelines for the use of diaphragms. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of the diaphragm with and without spermicide. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reference lists of relevant articles. In addition, we contacted experts in the field to identify unpublished studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing women of reproductive age using the diaphragm with and without spermicide as the sole contraceptive method that reported clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data on outcomes and trial characteristics and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus or by consultation with the third reviewer. The results of the one identified study are presented descriptively. We identified only one study. No significant difference was found in the pregnancy rates (with typical use or consistent use) or discontinuation rates between the diaphragm-with-spermicide and diaphragm-without-spermicide groups. There was a trend towards higher pregnancy rates in the diaphragm-without-spermicide group. However, this study failed to recruit the planned number of participants and was consequently underpowered. As only one underpowered study was identified, we cannot distinguish between the contraceptive effectiveness of the diaphragm with and without spermicide. We cannot draw any conclusion at this point, further research is needed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Librarian 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Social Sciences 4 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,794,319
of 13,243,534 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,824
of 10,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,732
of 276,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.