Post-coital contraception: An overview of published studies

M Fasoli, Fabio Parazzini, G Cecchetti, Carlo La Vecchia
In: Contraception · 1989 · vol. 39(4) , pp. 459–468 · doi:10.1016/0010-7824(89)90123-6 · PMID:2656085 · W2040964686
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 2 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-11 ⓘ

This paper reviews published studies on post-coital contraception, summarizing available information on its use and effectiveness.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Information from published studies testing the effect of hormonal and mechanical interceptive methods in post-coital contraception was pooled with the aim of assessing the efficacy of various regimens. The pooled failure rates were 0.6% (19/3168 based on four studies) for high-dosage ethinylestradiol, 1.1% (11/975, based on two studies) for other high-dose estrogens, 1.8% (69/3802 based on 11 studies) for combined estro-progestin preparations, 2.0% (20/998 based on three studies) for danazol and 0.1% (1/879 based on nine studies) for intra-uterine devices (IUD). Although this overview has several limitations in terms of over-representation of optimistic results in the literature or absence of direct comparison between treatments in several studies, it suggests that IUD and high-dose ethinylestradiol are more efficacious forms of post-coital contraception than danazol or combined contraceptives.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (2)

Cited by (2)

References (27)

Cited by (2)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-05-11T06:18:49.075943+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-19T06:23:00.919175+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK