Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Contraception | Protocol

Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Rebecca Gormley, Brian Vickers, Wendy V. Norman

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

For women seeking permanent contraception, there are a variety of options available including surgical techniques such as tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy, in-clinic procedures such as hysteroscopic techniques using micro-inserts, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive. Despite the various methods available for women who are seeking permanent contraception, there is not a review or decision-making tool that systematically brings together outcomes related to effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects, non-contraceptive benefits, recovery, or accessibility: all of which are important for shared decision-making between patients and health care providers.

Methods

We registered our protocol [on Prospero: CRD42016038254] following PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was created in collaboration with a librarian, and three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) will be searched along with secondary screening of relevant articles. A third reviewer will adjudicate any discrepancies. Data will be extracted independently according to population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS); length of follow-up; and funding. Articles will be assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to rank and analyze each method according to each objective. If heterogeneity between studies is too high or it is not possible to conduct a network meta-analysis, a narrative analysis of the study results will be provided.

Discussion

Clinicians and their patients seeking permanent contraception have several options, yet we were unable to find a systematic review or decision support tool helping to facilitate shared decision-making. This systematic review can inform patients, providers, and health policy decision-makers about which options of permanent contraception will meet different reproductive goals according to various outcomes, which can lead to better health, social, economic, and mental well-being for reproductive age women. This can also aid our understanding of resulting costs to the health care system.

Systematic review registration

Literature
1.
Black A, Guilbert E. Canadian contraception consensus. SOGC Clin Pract Guidel. 2015;37(10):S1–S28.
2.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. In: Division P, editor. New York: United Nations; 2014. 
3.
Chan L, Westhoff CL. Tubal sterilization trends in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1–6.CrossRef
4.
Kavanaugh M, Jerman J. Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception. 2018;97:14–21.CrossRef
5.
Black A, Yang Q, Wen SW, Lalonde A, Guilbert E, Fisher W. Contraceptive use by Canadian women of reproductive age: results of a national survey. Soc Obstet Gynecol Can. 2009;31:627–40.
6.
Patil E, Jensen JT. Update on permanent contraception options for women. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(6):465–70.CrossRef
7.
Westhoff C, Davis A. Tubal sterilization: focus on the U.S. experience. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):913–33.CrossRef
8.
Moss C, Isley MM. Sterilization: a review and update. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2015;42:713–24.CrossRef
9.
Nichols M, Carter JF, Fylstra DL, Childers M. A comparative study of hysteroscopic sterilization performed in-office versus a hospital operating room. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(5):447–50.CrossRef
10.
La Chapelle CF, Veersema S, Brolmann HAM, et al. Effectiveness and feasibility of hysteroscopic sterilization techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1516–25.CrossRef
11.
Ouzounelli M, Reaven NL. Essure hysteroscopic sterilization versus interval laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation: a comparative effectiveness review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):342–52.CrossRef
12.
McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MMM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(5):471.e1–e11.CrossRef
13.
Manchanda R, Chandrasekaran D, Saridogan E, et al. Should opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) for prevention of ovarian cancer be incorporated into routine care or offered in the context of a clinical trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):31–3.CrossRef
14.
Hanley GE, McAlpine JN, Kwon JS, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2015;2(1):5.CrossRef
15.
Fantasia HC. Options for intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(3):375–83.CrossRef
16.
Salem RM. New attention to the IUD: expanding women’s contraceptive options to meet their needs. Popul Reprod Bull. 2006;7:1–26.
17.
18.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRef
19.
20.
Wells GA SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 2012 [Available from: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses].
21.
Higgins JPT, Sally G. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0.2. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
22.
Ravishankar N, Hassan S, Nair SN. Network meta-analysis: an illustration. Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2015;4(8):1147–50.CrossRef
23.
24.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Rebecca Gormley
Brian Vickers
Wendy V. Norman
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0987-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue

Protocol

Effects of aerobic exercise on pain and disability in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review protocol

Commentary

Effects of training and support programs for leaders of illness-based support groups: commentary and updated evidence

Protocol

Mesenchymal stem cells for sensorineural hearing loss: protocol for a systematic review of preclinical studies

Research

Discharge communication practices in pediatric emergency care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Correction

Correction to: Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Protocol

Memory of pain in adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis