| Title |
Evaluation of extended and continuous use oral contraceptives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s2143 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristen Page Wright, Julia V Johnson |
| Abstract |
Oral contraceptives are classically given in a cyclic manner with 21 days of active pills followed by 7 days of placebo. In the past 4 years, new oral contraceptives have been introduced which either shorten the placebo time, lengthen the active pills (extended cycle), or provide active pills every day (continuous). These concepts are not new; extended and continuous pills were first studied in the 1960s and 1970s and have been provided in an off-label manner by gynecologists to treat menstrual disorders, such as menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea, and gynecologic disorders, such as endometriosis. Now that extended and continuous combined oral contraceptives are available for all patients, it is critical for providers to understand the physiology, dosing, side effects, and benefits of this form of oral contraceptive. This article reviews the history and the potential uses of the new continuous combined oral contraceptive. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 36 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2023.
All research outputs
#420,805
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 1,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#815
of 101,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 101,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.