The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the timing, frequency, and severity of hormone-related symptoms in oral contraceptive (OC) users, specifically to compare active-pill with hormone-free intervals. METHODS: Using daily diaries, women recorded pelvic pain, bleeding, headaches, analgesic use, nausea or vomiting, bloating or swelling, and breast tenderness during active-pill intervals and hormone-free intervals. Participants either had no prior OC use, had taken OCs and were restarting, or had been taking OCs continuously for 12 months or longer. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-two women, 26 with no previous OC use, 43 prior users, and 193 current users, provided daily records of hormone-related symptoms. Subjects with no prior OC use and prior users restarting were similar in no recent OC use, and because of the small sample, they were pooled for analysis as new-start OC users. Current users had patterns of symptoms that were more frequent during hormone-free intervals than during the three active-pill weeks. These included pelvic pain (70% versus 21%, P < .001), headaches (70% versus 53%, P < .001), use of pain medication (69% versus 43%, P < .001), bloating or swelling (58% versus 19%, P < .001), and breast tenderness (38% versus 16%, P < .001). Similar patterns were seen in new-start OC users after the first cycle. Among new-start OC users, menstrual flow patterns, headache, bloating or swelling, and breast-tenderness symptoms decreased during the three cycles to approach those levels of current users. CONCLUSION: Almost all symptoms assessed were significantly worse during the 7-day hormone-free interval than during the 21 days of hormone-containing pills.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Cited by
Efficacy of a New Low-Dose Oral Contraceptive With Drospirenone in Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder
Yonkers, K. A., Brown, C., Pearlstein, T. B., Foegh, M., Sampson-Landers, C., & Rapkin, A. (2005) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000175834.77215.2e · Cited by 349
Contraception Selection, Effectiveness, and Adverse Effects: A Review
Teal, S., & Edelman, A. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.21392 · Cited by 336
Migraine in women: the role of hormones and their impact on vascular diseases
Sacco, S., Ricci, S., Degan, D., & Carolei, A. (2012) · The Journal of Headache and Pain · doi:10.1007/s10194-012-0424-y · Cited by 272
Hormonal contraceptives: pharmacology tailored to women's health
De Leo, V., Musacchio, M. C., Cappelli, V., Piomboni, P., & Morgante, G. (2016) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw016 · Cited by 188
Vercellini, P., De Giorgi, O., Mosconi, P., Stellato, G., Vicentini, S., & Crosignani, P. G. (2002) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(01)02951-x · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Sulak, P.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 261-266
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127964780
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.76
- 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: Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00524-4
- The paper
- Sulak, P. (2000). Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00524-4
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.