Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of studies, including risk of bias, included in comparing female permanent contraception options in high resource countries: a systematic review (n = 34)

From: Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review

First author, year

Study period

N

Country

Population (mean/median age)

Intervention

Comparison

Outcomes reported

Study design

Follow up period

Funding

Risk of bias

Abbuhl, 1997

1990–1991

24 = LTL

182 = Control

US

30.8 vs. 24.1

LTL

No sterilization

Adverse events

Retrospective cohort study

Not reported

Not reported

Medium

Antoun, 2017

2005–2015

1085 = HTO

2412 = LTL

UK

36.1 vs. 35.6

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Adverse events

Tolerability

Observational

Cohort

1–10 years

Not reported

Low

Bouillon, 2018

2010–2015

71,303 = HTO

34,054 = LTL

France

41.5 vs. 40.8

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Adverse events

Tolerability

Patient recovery

Cohort, nation-wide database

1–3 years

Not reported

Low

Carmona, 2003

1994

31 = LTL

31 = Control

Spain

36.4 vs. 36.1

LTL

No sterilization

Adverse events

Case–control

5 years

Not reported

Low

Carney, 2017

2010–2012

12,031 = HTO

7286 = LTL

US

37.0 vs. 35.8

HTO

LTL

Costs to Healthcare System

Retrospective Cohort

6 months

Supported by Bayer HealthCare

Low

Conover, 2015

2005–2012

26,927 = HTO

44,948 = LTL

US

37.8 vs. 36.6

HTO

LTL

Adverse events

Prospective Cohort (administrative claims)

275 days HTO

283 days LTL

Investigator funding from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and HIH, National 7Heart Lung & Blood Institute

Low

Duffy, 2005

Not reported

59 = HTO

24 = LTL

UK

35.1 vs. 36.1

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Adverse

Tolerability

Length of Procedure

Cohort controlled comparative trial

3 months

Not reported

Medium

Falconer, 2015

1973–2009

34,433 = BS

81,658 = LTL

5,449,119 = Unexposed

Sweden

35.7 vs. 37.9

vs. 35.9

BS

LTL

No sterilization

Non-contraceptive benefits

Population based cohort study

18 years BS

21.4 years LTL

23.1 years no sterilization

Stockholm City Council

Low

Fernandez, 2014

2006–2010

39,169 = HTO

70,108 = LTL

France

41 vs. 40

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Retrospective cohort (hospital discharge)

1–4 years

Conceptus (manufacturer of Essure) provided CB, LL expenses for this study

Low

Franchini, 2009

2005–2007

24 = LTL

25 = HTO

Italy

Not reported

HTO

LTL

Patient Recovery

Cost to the healthcare system

Length of procedure

Case–control

Activity based cost management

Not reported

Not reported

Medium

Gaitskell, 2016

1996–2001

294,724 = LTL

984,059 = Control

UK

55.4 vs. 56.3

LTL

No sterilization

Adverse events

Non-contraceptive benefits

Prospective cohort study

13.8 years LTL

13.8 years no sterilizations

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council

Low

Greisman, 1991

1981–1987

22 = Ectopic with LTL

268 = Ectopic no LTL

Canada

33.5

LTL

No sterilization

Adverse events

Case–control

Not reported

Not reported

Medium

Hanley, 2018

2008–2014

19,424 = LTL

5839 = BS

Canada (BC)

35.3 vs. 36.4

LTL

BS

Adverse events

Retrospective cohort study

2 weeks

Canadian Cancer Society Research Institutes, CIHR, UBC Hospital Foundation

Low

Hopkins, 2007

2003–2004

43 = HTO

44 = LTL

US

37.2 vs. 37.7

HTO (operating room)

LTL

Costs to the healthcare system

Length of procedure

Retrospective cohort study

Not reported

Not reported

Low

Jokinen, 2017

2009–2014

5631 = HTO

4425 = LTL

Finland

38.0 vs. 35.5, 37.8

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Tolerability

National Register, study linkage

Not reported

Not reported

Low

Kjer, 1990

1978–1981

10,104 = LTL

847,012 = Control

Denmark

NA

LTL

No sterilization

Effectiveness

Adverse events

Case–control

4–7 years

Not reported

Medium

Kim, 2019

2013–2016

180 = BS

274 = LTL

US

32.3 vs. 33.1

LTL

BS

Adverse events

Length of procedure

Retrospective cohort study

Not reported

Not reported

Low

Lessard-Anderson, 2014

1966–2009

194 = Cases

388 = Controls

US

61.4 vs. 61.4

BS

LTL

Matched control

Non-contraceptive benefits

Case–control (nested)

44 years

Not reported

Low

Levie, 2005

Unspecified

Unspecified

US

Unspecified

HTO (office setting)

LTL (surgical)

Costs to the healthcare system

Case–control Cost comparison analysis

Not reported

Not reported

Low

Madsen, 2015

1982–2011

13,241 = Cases (ovarian cancer)

194,689 = Controls (ovarian cancer)

3605 = Cases (ovarian tumour)

53,322 = Controls (ovarian tumour)

Denmark

Each case (30–84, no previous cancer) matched with 15 randomly selected matched on date of birth from Civil Registration

BS, LTL

No sterilization

Non-contraceptive benefits

Case–control (register-based)

Not reported

Danish Cancer Society Scientific Board

Low

Malacova, 2014

1990–2010

278 = HTO

20,429 = LTL

553 = BS

22,295 = unspecified

Australia

18–44

HTO, BS, LTL

Unspecified destruction of tubes

Adverse events

Retrospective cohort study

Up to 15 years

Not reported

Low

Mao, 2019

2005–2016

10,143 = HTO

53,206 = LTL

US (New York)

34.9 vs. 34.1

HTO

LTL

Tolerability

Non-contraceptive benefits

Observational cohort

7 years

Not reported

Low

Mao, 2015

2005–2013

8048 = HTO

44,278 = LTL

US (New York)

54.9% vs. 55.3% between 30–39

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Adverse events

Tolerability

Length of procedures

Costs to healthcare system

Observational, Population based cohort study

1 year

UO1 grant (NIH- 1U01FD004494-01). MDEpiNet Science and Infrastructure Centre. JM is an analyst within the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC) Patient Centered Comparative Effectiveness Program and the Medical Device Epidemiology Network’s (MDEpiNet) Science and Infrastructure Center: AS is the director of the Center)

Low

McAlpine, 2014

2008–2011

1569 = BS

13,719 = LTL

Canada (British Columbia)

36.0 vs. 34.8

BS

LTL

Patient recovery

Adverse events

Length of procedure

Retrospective cohort study

Not reported

Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia Hospital Foundation and the British Columbia Cancer Foundation

Low

Niblock, 2014

2008–2011

60 = HTO

25 = LTL

UK

36.5 vs. 35.1

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Tolerability

Adverse events

Patient Recovery

Retrospective chart review

6–50 months

Not reported

Medium

Perkins, 2016

2007–2013

27,724 = HTO

42,391 = LTL

US

37.4 vs. 36.7

HTO

LTL

Effectiveness

Adverse events

Tolerability

Retrospective cohort study

2.25 years HTO

2.33 years LTL

Not reported

Low

Powell, 2017

2011–2016

1483 = BS

2229 = LTL

US (Northern California)

36 vs. 36

BS

LTL

Adverse events

Patient recovery

Length of procedure

Retrospective cohort study

5 years

Not reported

Low

Rulin, 1993

Not reported

500 = LTL

466 = Comparison

US (3 hospitals: Pittsburgh, Atlanta, NY)

28 vs. 27

LTL

No sterilization

Adverse events

Cohort

3–4.5 years

2 R01 HD 19398-04 National Institutes of Health

Medium

Steward, 2017

2009–2012

3929 = HTO

10,875 = LTL

US

31.8 vs. 30.4

HTO

LTL

Adverse events

Retrospective cohort study

24 months

Financial support from Bayer for the study, and employees involved in design, execution, analysis, reporting of this paper

Low

Syed, 2007

2003–2004

20 = LTL

20 = HTO

US – Staten Island Uni

42.5 vs. 38

HTO

LTL

Adverse events

Patient Recovery

Length of procedure

Cohort study

6 months

Not reported

High

Theil, 2008

HTO = 2005–2006

LTL = 2001–2004

108 = HTO

104 = LTL

Regina, Canada

36.8 vs. 33.4

HTO

LTL

Tolerability

Length of procedure

Costs to the healthcare system

Retrospective cohort study

Not reported

Not reported

Medium

Trussel, 1995

1991–1993

20,000 public payments from commercial insurers

United States

Not reported

LTL

LNG-IUC

Costs to the healthcare system

Cohort

Not reported

Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories

Medium

Westberg, 2017

2011–2015

81 = BS

68 = LTL

US (UC Davis Medical Center)

35.6 vs. 36.2

BS

LTL

Adverse events

Length of procedure

Retrospective cohort study (chart review)

30 days

Not reported

Low

Zerden, 2018

2014–2015

13 = BS

5 = Current LTL

22 = Historical LTL

US

35.0 vs. 34.6 vs. 34.9

BS

LTL (current and historical)

Adverse events

Length of procedure

Cohort study

Not reported

Ligasure Instruments (bipolar sealing device) donated by Medtronic/Covidien

Low