Margaret Pyke Centre, 27 Mortirner Street, London, W.l.
1471-0528/asset/BJO_left.gif?v=1&s=0fb87361cdb6be25fdf05019eed6d47f5143f610)
1471-0528/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=3892ef16ff18d6834c302faf85268a49f5fc588f)
A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL OF TWO LOW DOSE COMBINED ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb11263.x
Issue
1471-0528/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=b4e1d96c46e18c61210d584b63c13ee375cf562b "BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology")
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 86, Issue 4, pages 325–329, April 1979
Additional Information
How to Cite
Bounds, W., Vessey, M. and Wiggins, P. (1979), A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL OF TWO LOW DOSE COMBINED ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 86: 325–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb11263.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Abstract
- References
- Cited By
Summary
Fifty-five women using Loestrin-20 (20 μg ethinyl oestradiol and 1 mg norethisterone acetate) as an oral contraceptive have been compared with a like number using Microgynon-30 (30 μg ethinyl oestradiol and 150 μg levonorgestrel) in a randomized, double-blind trial. Despite the small sample size, the main finding in the trial is clear-cut; Loestrin-20 provides poor cycle control and is thus less acceptable as an oral contraceptive than Microgynon-30. Although there is also a suggestion that Loestrin-20 may be less effective than Microgynon-30, the difference in the accidental pregnancy rates is not statistically significant.