Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ischemic Stroke Risk With Oral Contraceptives: A Meta-analysis

Gillum, Leslie Allison, Mamidipudi, Sai Kumar, Johnston, S. Claiborne·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The relationship between ischemic stroke and oral contraceptive (OC) use has been studied for 40 years, but disagreement about an association persists. OBJECTIVE: To review available literature to determine whether OC use is associated with increased stroke risk. DATA SOURCES: Studies published from January 1960 through November 1999 were identified from electronic databases (MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and Dissertation Abstracts Online), Index Medicus, bibliographies of pertinent review articles and pertinent original articles, textbooks, and expert consultation. STUDY SELECTION: From 804 potentially relevant references retrieved, 73 were studies investigating risk of ischemic stroke with OC use. Two reviewers independently applied the following inclusion criteria: more than 10 stroke cases sampled, clear stroke subtype differentiation, concurrent controls included, adequate data included to determine relative risks (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs), analysis controlled for age, and no later publication of identical data. A third investigator adjudicated disagreements. Sixteen studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently extracted data, with disagreements resolved through discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 16 studies were analyzed using random effects modeling. Current OC use was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (RR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.24-3.38). Smaller estrogen dosages were associated with lower risk (P=.01 for trend), but risk was significantly elevated for all dosages. Studies that did not control for smoking (P=.01) and those using hospital-based controls (P<.001) found higher RRs, but no other patient characteristics or elements of study design were important. The summary RR was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.35-2.74) for low-estrogen preparations in population-based studies that controlled for smoking and hypertension. This translates to an additional 4.1 ischemic strokes per 100,000 nonsmoking, normotensive women using low-estrogen OCs, or 1 additional ischemic stroke per year per 24,000 such women. The RR of stroke due to OC use was not different in women who smoked, had migraines, or had hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Summary results indicate that risk of ischemic stroke is increased in current OC users, even with newer low-estrogen preparations. However, the absolute increase in stroke risk is expected to be small since incidence is very low in this population. JAMA. 2000;284:72-78

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.1.72

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 402

Metadata

Authors
Gillum, L. A., Mamidipudi, S. K., & Johnston, S. C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-07-05
Volume
284
Issue
1
Pages
72
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2059818560
Cited by
402
References
1
FWCI
12.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ischemic Stroke Risk With Oral Contraceptives: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.1.72
The paper
Gillum, L. A., Mamidipudi, S. K., & Johnston, S. C. (2000). Ischemic Stroke Risk With Oral Contraceptives: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.1.72

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.