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