Cited by 74Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsReproductive Health and Contraception

Controversy of Oral Contraceptives and Risk of Rheumatoid Arthirtis: Meta-analysis of Conflicting Studies and Review of Conflicting Meta-analyses with Special Emphasis on Analysis of Heterogeneity

Pladevall-Vila, M., Delclos, G. L., Varas, C., Guyer, H., BruguEs-Tarradellas, J., Anglada-Arisa, A.·1996·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The authors analyze the heterogeneity present in the combined results of past observational studies that investigated the association between oral contraceptive use and rheumatoid arthritis. The authors also evaluate discrepancies among meta-analyses that focus on the same relation. Of the 15 initially reviewed studies, 10 were selected for this meta-analysis, which also includes a qualitative summary of study characteristics and a critical appraisal of study quality. The authors used the direct method to combine the study results when there was no evidence of heterogeneity and the DerSimonian-Laird method when heterogeneity was present. Using a meta-regression to assess the sources of heterogeneity, the authors weighted summary estimates by sample size and undertook a sensitivity analysis. There was a strong indication of heterogeneity when combining all studies (x2 = 29.34, p = 0.00060) with the source of controls explaining most of the heterogeneity. The most important factor in explaining the differences among the overall summary estimates given by the meta-analyses is that different effect estimates had been selected for the same studies. There is no conclusive evidence of a protective effect of oral contraceptives on the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Consensus is needed on how meta-analyses of observational studies should be conducted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008846

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pladevall-Vila, M., Delclos, G. L., Varas, C., Guyer, H., BruguEs-Tarradellas, J., & Anglada-Arisa, A.
Affiliations
Hospital Universitari de Vic (ES)
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1996-07-01
Volume
144
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2147317986
Cited by
74
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
oral contraceptives, rheumatoid arthritis, heterogeneity, meta-regression, study quality, effect estimates, observational studies, protective effect
MeSH terms
Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Contraceptives, Oral, Female, Humans, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Risk, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies, Bias, Case-Control Studies

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