Cited by 258Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementReproductive Health and ContraceptionBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis

Open access
Mantha, S., Karp, R., Raghavan, V., Terrin, N., Bauer, K. A., Zwicker, J. I.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with the use of progestin-only contraception and whether that risk differs with the mode of drug delivery (oral, intrauterine, or depot injection). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and case-control, cohort, and cross sectional studies with venous thromboembolic outcome for progestin-only contraception reported relative to a non-hormone comparator group. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and consensus for inclusion was reached after assessment by additional investigators. RESULTS: Among the 2022 unique references identified by all searches, eight observational studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. A total of 147 women across all studies were diagnosed with a venous thromboembolic event while taking progestin-only contraception, and the summary measure for the adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic episode for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive was, based on the random effects model, 1.03 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.39). Subgroup analysis confirmed there was no association between venous thromboembolic risk and progestin-only pills (relative risk 0.90 (0.57 to 1.45)) or a progestin intrauterine device (0.61 (0.24 to 1.53)). The relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users of an injectable progestin versus non-users was 2.67 (1.29 to 5.53). CONCLUSIONS: Published data assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women prescribed progestin-only contraception are limited. In this meta-analysis of eight observational studies, the use of progestin-only contraception was not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users of hormonal contraception. The potential association between injectable progestins and thrombosis requires further study.

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.e4944

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • CHC has been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis.

    “In patients with high risk of thrombosis who are not fully anticoagulated, CHC and injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) should be avoided, and is generally contraindicated, as both have been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis[104, 105].”

    From Estrogen and thrombosis: a bench to bedside review (2020) · cites this paper as [105]

  • Injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) has been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis.

    “In patients with high risk of thrombosis who are not fully anticoagulated, CHC and injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) should be avoided, and is generally contraindicated, as both have been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis[104, 105].”

    From Estrogen and thrombosis: a bench to bedside review (2020) · cites this paper as [105]

  • Injectable progesterone such as DMPA may have a small increase in VTE risk.

    “Progestin-only pills are generally considered safe, however, injectable progesterone such as DMPA may have a small increase in VTE risk [104, 105].”

    From Estrogen and thrombosis: a bench to bedside review (2020) · cites this paper as [105]

  • Progestin-only pills are generally considered safe in women with hereditary thrombophilia.

    “Progestin-only pills are generally considered safe, however, injectable progesterone such as DMPA may have a small increase in VTE risk [104, 105].”

    From Estrogen and thrombosis: a bench to bedside review (2020) · cites this paper as [105]

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

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al for the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
  2. No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mantha, S., Karp, R., Raghavan, V., Terrin, N., Bauer, K. A., & Zwicker, J. I.
Affiliations
  • Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (US)
  • Mount Auburn Hospital (US)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Zwicker, J. I.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-08-07
Volume
345
Issue
aug07 2
Pages
e4944-e4944
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167745220
Cited by
258
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.07
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)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025752)
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 thromboembolism, progestin-only contraception, hormonal contraception, progestin-only pills, thrombosis risk
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Delayed-Action Preparations, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Intrauterine Devices, Medicated, Progestins, Venous Thromboembolism

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