Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: results of the MICA case-control study Commentary: Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: reassuring new findings

Open access
Dunn, N., Thorogood, M., Faragher, B., de Caestecker, L., MacDonald, T. M, McCollum, C., Thomas, S., Mann, R., Lidegaard, O.·1999·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between myocardial infarction and use of different types of oral contraception in young women. DESIGN: Community based case-control study. Data from interviews and general practice records. SETTING: England, Scotland, and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Cases (n=448) were recruited from women aged between 16 and 44 who had suffered an incident myocardial infarction between 1 October 1993 and 16 October 1995. Controls (n=1728) were women without a diagnosis of myocardial infarction matched for age and general practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds ratios for myocardial infarction in current users of all combined oral contraceptives stratified by their progestagen content compared with non-users; current users of third generation versus second generation oral contraceptives. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio for myocardial infarction was 1.40 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 2. 52) for all combined oral contraceptive users, 1.10 (0.52 to 2.30) for second generation users, and 1.96 (0.87 to 4.39) for third generation users. Subgroup analysis by progestagen content did not show any significant difference from 1, and there was no effect of duration of use. The adjusted odds ratio for third generation users versus second generation users was 1.78 (0.66 to 4.83). 87% of cases were not exposed to an oral contraceptive, and 88% had clinical cardiovascular risk factors or were smokers, or both. Smoking was strongly associated with myocardial infarction: adjusted odds ratio 12.5 (7.29 to 21.5) for smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association between the use of oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction. The modest and non-significant point estimates for this association have wide confidence intervals. There was no significant difference between second and third generation products.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.318.7198.1579

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 169

Metadata

Authors
Dunn, N., Thorogood, M., Faragher, B., de Caestecker, L., MacDonald, T. M., McCollum, C., Thomas, S., Mann, R., & Lidegaard, O.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-06-12
Volume
318
Issue
7198
Pages
1579-1584
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1529565841
Cited by
169
References
0
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: Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: results of the MICA case-control study Commentary: Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: reassuring new findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.318.7198.1579
The paper
Dunn, N., Thorogood, M., Faragher, B., de Caestecker, L., MacDonald, T. M., McCollum, C., Thomas, S., Mann, R., & Lidegaard, O. (1999). Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: results of the MICA case-control study Commentary: Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: reassuring new findings. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7198.1579

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.