The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions for emergency contraception
Open accessAbstract
Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control (expectant management), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.1.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).Analysis 2.2.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).Analysis 2.3.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.4.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Need for extra dose. . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.5.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.6.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 6 Specific side effects. . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.7.Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 3.1.Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 3.2.Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 2 Any side effect. . . .Analysis 4.1.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 4.2.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 4.3.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 4.4.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 4 Specific side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 4.5.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 5 Menses.Analysis 4.6.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 6 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 4.7.Comparison 4 Mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg-50 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 7 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 5.1.Comparison 5 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 5.2.Comparison 5 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i Interventions for emergency contraception (Review)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cited by 2,782
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Rind, D., Devereaux, P. J., Montori, V. M., Freyschuss, B., Vist, G., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 · Cited by 2,693
Intended and Unintended Pregnancies Worldwide in 2012 and Recent Trends
Sedgh, G., Singh, S., & Hussain, R. (2014) · Studies in Family Planning · doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x · Cited by 1,040
Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008
Sedgh, G., Singh, S., Shah, I. H., Åhman, E., Henshaw, S. K., & Bankole, A. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61786-8 · Cited by 607
von Hertzen, H., Piaggio, G., Peregoudov, A., Ding, J., Chen, J., Song, S., Bártfai, G., Ng, E., Gemzell-Danielsson, K., Oyunbileg, A., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11767-3 · Cited by 570
Glasier, A. F., Cameron, S. T., Fine, P. M., Logan, S. J., Casale, W., Van Horn, J., Sogor, L., Blithe, D. L., Scherrer, B., Mathe, H., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60101-8 · Cited by 526
Cited by
Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021
Workowski, K. A., Bachmann, L. H., Chan, P. A., Johnston, C. M., Muzny, C. A., Park, I., Reno, H., Zenilman, J. M., & Bolan, G. A. (2021) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1 · Cited by 3,018
2018 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy
Regitz-Zagrosek, V., Roos-Hesselink, J. W., Bauersachs, J., Blomström-Lundqvist, C., Cífková, R., De Bonis, M., Iung, B., Johnson, M. R., Kintscher, U., Kranke, P., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy340 · Cited by 2,292
ESC Guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy
Endorsed by the European Society of Gynecology (ESG), T. A. F. E. P. C. (., Authors/Task Force Members, Regitz-Zagrosek, V., Blomstrom Lundqvist, C., Borghi, C., Cifkova, R., Ferreira, R., Foidart, J.-M., Gibbs, J. S. R., Gohlke-Baerwolf, C., et al. (2011) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr218 · Cited by 1,924
Ott, M. A., Sucato, G. S., COMMITTEE ON ADOLESCENCE, Braverman, P. K., Adelman, W. P., Alderman, E. M., Breuner, C. C., Levine, D. A., Marcell, A. V., & O’Brien, R. F. (2014) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2300 · Cited by 402
Cleland, K., Zhu, H., Goldstuck, N., Cheng, L., & Trussell, J. (2012) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/des140 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Shen, J., Che, Y., Showell, E., Chen, K., & Cheng, L.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-08-02
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- CD001324-CD001324
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1850807207
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 126
- FWCI
- 15.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Interventions for emergency contraception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001324.pub5
- The paper
- Shen, J., Che, Y., Showell, E., Chen, K., & Cheng, L. (2017). Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001324.pub5
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.
