Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Contraceptive Efficacy and Cycle Control of a Transdermal Contraceptive Patch vs an Oral Contraceptive<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Audet, Marie-Claude·2001·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Oral contraceptive (OC) pills are effective, but poor compliance increases rates of pregnancy during treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the contraceptive efficacy, cycle control, compliance, and safety of a transdermal contraceptive patch and an OC. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial conducted October 1997 to June 1999. SETTING: Forty-five clinics in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1417 healthy adult women of child-bearing potential. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a transdermal contraceptive patch (n = 812) vs an OC (n = 605) for 6 or 13 cycles. Patch treatment consisted of application of 3 consecutive 7-day patches followed by 1 patch-free week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and method-failure Pearl Indexes (number of pregnancies/100 person-years of use) and life-table estimates of the probability of pregnancy were calculated. Cycle control, compliance, patch adhesion, and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall and method-failure Pearl Indexes were numerically lower with the patch (1.24 and 0.99, respectively) vs the OC (2.18 and 1.25, respectively); this difference was not statistically significant (P =.57 and.80, respectively). The incidence of breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting was significantly higher only in the first 2 cycles in the patch group, but the incidence of breakthrough bleeding alone was comparable between treatments in all cycles. The mean proportion of participants' cycles with perfect compliance was 88.2% (811 total participants, 5141 total cycles) with the patch and 77.7% (605 total participants, 4134 total cycles) with the OC (P <.001). Only 1.8% (300/16 673) of patches completely detached. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated; however, application site reactions, breast discomfort, and dysmenorrhea were significantly more common in the patch group. CONCLUSION: The contraceptive patch is comparable to a combination OC in contraceptive efficacy and cycle control. Compliance was better with the weekly contraceptive patch than with the OC.

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.285.18.2347

Cites

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 338

Metadata

Authors
Audet, M.-C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-05-09
Volume
285
Issue
18
Pages
2347
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2054400702
Cited by
338
References
0
FWCI
24.36
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: Evaluation of Contraceptive Efficacy and Cycle Control of a Transdermal Contraceptive Patch vs an Oral Contraceptive<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.285.18.2347
The paper
Audet, M.-C. (2001). Evaluation of Contraceptive Efficacy and Cycle Control of a Transdermal Contraceptive Patch vs an Oral Contraceptive<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.18.2347

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.