首页> 外文期刊>Contraception >Communicating risk: Does scientific debate compromise safety?
【24h】

Communicating risk: Does scientific debate compromise safety?

机译:沟通风险:科学辩论是否会危害安全?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A recent publication in the influential British Medical Journal (BMJ) using the Danish National Registry databases reported an increased risk of venous thrombosis (VT) in women using the combination contraceptive ring and patch, and suggested that the risk may also be increased among users of the etonogestrel implant [1]. While an increased risk of VT is well established for women using combined hormonal methods, in this database study, users of the ring and patch were noted to have double the risk of VT compared to users of a low-dose levonorgestrel (LNG) pill. In 2009, the same research group using similar methodology reported a twofold increase in VT risk among users of drospirenone-containing combined oral contraceptives (OCs) relative to LNG pills [2]. This created a ripple effect that bounced off our shores and led to FDA hearings that resulted in media attention and a change in labeling for these products. How should we communicate this new information about the ring and patch to patients and other health care providers?
机译:最近在有影响力的《英国医学杂志》(BMJ)上使用丹麦国家注册数据库的出版物报道,使用避孕环和贴剂联合使用的妇女发生静脉血栓形成(VT)的风险增加,并表明该风险也可能会增加依托孕酮植入物[1]。尽管使用激素结合方法已为女性确定了增加的VT风险,但在该数据库研究中,与使用低剂量左炔诺孕酮(LNG)药的用户相比,使用环和贴片的用户发生VT的风险增加了一倍。 2009年,使用相同方法的同一研究小组报告,使用含有屈螺酮酮的联合口服避孕药(OCs)使用者的VT风险相对于LNG药增加了两倍[2]。这造成了连锁反应,反弹到我们的岸上,并导致FDA举行听证会,引起了媒体的关注,并改变了这些产品的标签。我们应如何将有关环和贴片的新信息传达给患者和其他医疗保健提供者?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号