Cited by 327Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementReproductive Health and ContraceptionBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10

Open access
Lidegaard, O., Nielsen, L. H., Skovlund, C. W., Lokkegaard, E.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of venous thrombosis in current users of non-oral hormonal contraception. DESIGN: Historical national registry based cohort study. SETTING: Four national registries in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: All Danish non-pregnant women aged 15-49 (n=1,626,158), free of previous thrombotic disease or cancer, were followed from 2001 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rate of venous thrombosis in users of transdermal, vaginal, intrauterine, or subcutaneous hormonal contraception, relative risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-users, and rate ratios of venous thrombosis in current users of non-oral products compared with the standard reference oral contraceptive with levonorgestrel and 30-40 µg oestrogen. Diagnoses were confirmed by at least four weeks of anticoagulation therapy after the diagnosis. RESULTS: Within 9,429,128 woman years of observation, 5287 first ever venous thrombosis events were recorded, of which 3434 were confirmed. In non-users of hormonal contraception the incidence rate of confirmed events was 2.1 per 10,000 woman years. Compared with non-users of hormonal contraception, and after adjustment for age, calendar year, and education, the relative risk of confirmed venous thrombosis in users of transdermal combined contraceptive patches was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 17.7) and of the vaginal ring was 6.5 (4.7 to 8.9). The corresponding incidences per 10,000 exposure years were 9.7 and 7.8 events. The relative risk was increased in women who used subcutaneous implants (1.4, 0.6 to 3.4) but not in those who used the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (0.6, 0.4 to 0.8). Compared with users of combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, the adjusted relative risk of venous thrombosis in users of transdermal patches was 2.3 (1.0 to 5.2) and of the vaginal ring was 1.9 (1.3 to 2.7). CONCLUSION: Women who use transdermal patches or vaginal rings for contraception have a 7.9 and 6.5 times increased risk of confirmed venous thrombosis compared with non-users of hormonal contraception of the same age, corresponding to 9.7 and 7.8 events per 10,000 exposure years. The risk was slightly increased in women using subcutaneous implants but not in those using the levonorgestrel intrauterine system.

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.e2990

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJM, Alnabawy A, Kaptein MC. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in the transdermal patch, and an oral contraceptive. Contraception 2005;72:168-74.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lidegaard, O., Nielsen, L. H., Skovlund, C. W., & Lokkegaard, E.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-05-10
Volume
344
Issue
may10 3
Pages
e2990-e2990
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153677157
Cited by
326
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 17
FWCI
25.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Rigshospitalet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Keywords
venous thrombosis, contraceptive patch, vaginal ring, subdermal contraceptive implant, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptives, thrombosis risk, women of reproductive age, Denmark
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anticoagulants, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Contraceptive Devices, Female, Contraceptives, Oral, Combined, Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal, Denmark, Drug Implants, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Norgestrel, Levonorgestrel, Venous Thrombosis, Young Adult, Transdermal Patch

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