Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis

Open access
Kemmeren, Jeanet M, Algra, Ale, Grobbee, Diederick E·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate quantitatively articles that compared effects of second and third generation oral contraceptives on risk of venous thrombosis. Design: Meta-analysis. Studies: Cohort and case-control studies assessing risk of venous thromboembolism among women using oral contraceptives before October 1995. Main outcome measures: Pooled adjusted odds ratios calculated by a general variance based random effects method. When possible, two by two tables were extracted and combined by the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: The overall adjusted odds ratio for third versus second generation oral contraceptives was 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 2.0; seven studies). Similar risks were found when oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene were compared with those containing levonorgestrel. Among first time users, the odds ratio for third versus second generation preparations was 3.1 (2.0 to 4.6; four studies). The odds ratio was 2.5 (1.6 to 4.1; five studies) for short term users compared with 2.0 (1.4 to 2.7; five studies) for longer term users. The odds ratio was 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7) in studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry and 2.3 (1.7 to 3.2) in other studies. Differences in age and certainty of diagnosis of venous thrombosis did not affect the results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis supports the view that third generation oral contraceptives are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with second generation oral contraceptives. The increase cannot be explained by several potential biases. What is already known on this topic: Third generation oral contraceptives have been reported to increase the risk of venous thrombosis compared with second generation oral contraceptives The findings have been vigorously debated, with suggestions that the results can be explained by confounding or bias, or both. What this study adds: Women taking third generation oral contraceptives have a 1.7-fold increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with those taking second generation oral contraceptives Risk is highest in first time users The biases were not large enough to account for the observed results

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.323.7305.131

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Kemmeren, J. M., Algra, A., & Grobbee, D. E.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-07-21
Volume
323
Issue
7305
Pages
131
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2113184125
Cited by
455
References
49
FWCI
17.81
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: Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7305.131
The paper
Kemmeren, J. M., Algra, A., & Grobbee, D. E. (2001). Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7305.131

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.