Consensus recommendations for measuring the impact of contraception on the menstrual cycle in contraceptive clinical trials

preprint OA: gold CC-BY-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF View at publisher

Abstract

Objective We sought to develop consensus recommendations for improved measurement of contraceptive-induced menstrual changes (CIMCs) in contraceptive clinical trials to build upon previous standardization efforts. Study Design We undertook a virtual consensus-building process using a modified Delphi approach, incorporating aspects of Nominal Group Technique and the Jandhyala method. The process consisted of four half-day meetings, developing recommendations within five topical working groups, a series of consensus questionnaires to assess recommendation agreement on a 4-point Likert-like scale, and opportunities for input and feedback throughout the process. Recommendations required at least 75% consensus to be included. Results Our interdisciplinary group—from 26 organizations and 13 countries in five global regions across academia, nonprofit research organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and funding agencies— developed 44 consensus recommendations. These included recommendations on standardization, patient-reported outcome measure development aligned with current regulatory guidance, trial design, protocol development, participant recruitment, data collection, data analysis, and areas for exploratory research. Seven recommendations were deemed a priority by over 85% of our group. Conclusion Using a formal consensus-building process, we reached high levels of agreement around recommendations for more standardized and patient-centered measurement of CIMCs in contraceptive clinical trials, now and in the future. Implications statement Consensus recommendations on measuring bleeding changes and related outcomes in contraceptive clinical trials can improve reporting of standardized, patient-centered outcomes in future product labeling. These improvements can enable providers to offer more relevant counseling on contraceptives and permit greater comparability and data synthesis across trials to inform clinical guidance.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-ND-4.0