 |
|
Lack of Objectivity in the Debate Concerning Third-Generation Oral Contraceptives and Venous Thrombosis
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The debate on possible differences in thrombogenic potential between
so-called "third-generation" oral contraceptives and "second-generation" pills
has generated more heat than light, providing many examples of unwarranted
conclusions based on inconclusive data; for example:
Although these numbers are too small to arrive at stable conclusions,
they support those in the literature about differences in venous thrombosis
risk for different types of contraceptives. They also indicate that the "starter
effect" does not explain the difference between different types
of contraceptives.1
The numbers in question were based on 6 cases and 3 controls, and since
no significant difference was found, it seems illogical to refute a possible
cause for a difference in the same study. Here is another example: "The odds
ratios for all third-generation monophasic contraceptives were higher [than
for second-generation pills]."2 The odds
ratio for the overall difference was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.2),
and so cannot accurately be described . . . [Full Text of this Article]
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Risk of Venous Thromboembolic Disease Associated With Hormonal Contraceptives and Hormone Replacement Therapy: A Clinical Review
Gomes and Deitcher
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1965-1976.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
