Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception: a Cochrane review

被引:8
作者
Kuyoh, MA [1 ]
Toroitich-Ruto, C [1 ]
Grimes, DA [1 ]
Schulz, KF [1 ]
Gallo, MF [1 ]
机构
[1] Family Hlth Int, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
关键词
sponge; diaphragm; barrier contraception; systematic review;
D O I
10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00434-1
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The contraceptive vaginal sponge was developed as an alternative to the contraceptive diaphragm. Unlike the diaphragm, the sponge can be used for more than one coital act within 24 h without the insertion of additional spermicide, and it does not require fitting or a prescription from a physician. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared the vaginal contraceptive sponge with the diaphragm used with a sperruicide in order to evaluate the efficacy and continuation rates of the two devices. The sponge was statistically significantly less effective in preventing overall pregnancy than was the diaphragm in the two trials that met our inclusion criteria. The 12-month cumulative life table termination rates per 100 women for overall pregnancy were 17.4 for the sponge versus 12.8 for the diaphragm in the larger US trial, and 24.5 for the sponge and 10.9 for the diaphragm in the UK trial. Similarly, discontinuation rates at 12 months were higher With the sponge than with the diaphragm [odds ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.6]. Allergic-type reactions were more common with the sponge in both trials, although the frequency of discontinuation for discomfort differed in the two trials. Other randomized controlled trials will be needed to resolve the role of spermicides in preventing sexually transmitted infections or in causing adverse effects. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:15 / 18
页数:4
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[2]   THE CONTRACEPTIVE SPONGE - FACTORS IN INITIATION AND DISCONTINUATION OF USE [J].
BECKMAN, LJ ;
MURRAY, J ;
HARVEY, SM .
CONTRACEPTION, 1989, 40 (04) :481-496
[3]  
BOUNDS W, 1984, BR J FAM PLANN, V10, P69
[4]   Do spermicides containing nonoxynol-9 prevent sexually transmitted infections?: A meta-analysis [J].
Cook, RL ;
Rosenberg, MJ .
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, 1998, 25 (03) :144-150
[5]  
EDELMAN D A, 1987, Advances in Contraception, V3, P327, DOI 10.1007/BF01849290
[6]   A COMPARATIVE TRIAL OF THE TODAY CONTRACEPTIVE SPONGE AND DIAPHRAGM [J].
EDELMAN, DA ;
MCINTYRE, SL ;
HARPER, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1984, 150 (07) :869-876
[7]  
EDELMAN DA, 1985, FAM PLANN PERSPECT, V17, P284
[8]   UPDATED PREGNANCY RATES FOR THE TODAY CONTRACEPTIVE SPONGE [J].
EDELMAN, DA ;
NORTH, BB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1987, 157 (05) :1164-1165
[9]   TOXIC SHOCK SYNDROME AND THE VAGINAL CONTRACEPTIVE SPONGE [J].
FAICH, G ;
PEARSON, K ;
FLEMING, D ;
SOBEL, S ;
ANELLO, C .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1986, 255 (02) :216-218
[10]  
*FAM HLTH INT, 1985, ADD FIN REP DEV TEST