Cochrane

Interventions for emergency contraception (Review)
Cheng L, Che Y, Glmezoglu AM
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Interventions for emergency contraception (Review) Copyright 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Need for extra dose. . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . . Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . . . . Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . . . . Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 2 2 5 5 5 8 10 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 18 20 21 21 30 90 107 108 109 110 111 111 112 114 115 116 117 119 120 121 122 123 125 126 127
i
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 6 Specic side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 7 Menses. . Analysis 5.8. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 5.9. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 5 Any side effect. Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 6 Specic side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.7. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 7 Menses. . . Analysis 6.8. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 6.9. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 4 Observed number of pregnancy within 0-72 h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 7.7. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 7 Specic side effects. . . Analysis 7.8. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 8 Menses. . . . . . . Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 9.6. Comparison 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg), Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 5 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
128 129 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 150 151 152 152 153 155 156 157 158 162 164 165
ii
Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.5. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 5 Delay in menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 12.4. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 12.5. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 5 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 13.3. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 13.4. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 13.5. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 5 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 14.4. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Need for extra dose. . . . . . . Analysis 14.5. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . . . . . Analysis 14.6. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . . . . . . Analysis 14.7. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 2 Any side effect. . . . Analysis 15.3. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 3 Specic side effect. . . Analysis 15.4. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 4 Menses. . . . . . . Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 16.3. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . Analysis 16.4. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . Analysis 16.5. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Menses. . . . . . Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 17.3. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 3 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 17.4. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 17.5. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Delay in menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
166 168 169 170 171 172 174 175 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 183 184 186 187 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 198 199
iii
Analysis 18.5. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 5 Any side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 18.6. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 6 Menses. Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 19.3. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 19.6. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 6 Specic side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 19.7. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 7 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 20.6. Comparison 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses), Outcome 6 Specic side effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 21.5. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 5 Any side effect. Analysis 21.6. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 6 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 21.7. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 7 Menses. . . . Analysis 22.1. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 22.2. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 2 Side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 22.3. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 3 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 23.3. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 23.4. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Specic side effects. . . . . . . . Analysis 23.5. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Menses. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 24.1. Comparison 24 High-dose oestrogens versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 25.1. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 25.2. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Any side effect. . . . . . . . Analysis 25.3. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Specic side effects. . . . . . Analysis 26.1. Comparison 26 High-risk women versus low-risk women (all hormonal methods), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 27.1. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 27.2. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 27.3. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 3 > 2448 h vs > 48-72 h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 27.4. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 28.1. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h. . Analysis 28.2. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h. . Analysis 28.3. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h. . Analysis 28.4. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h. . . . Analysis 29.1. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h. . Analysis 29.2. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h. . Analysis 29.3. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h. Analysis 29.4. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h. . .
199 200 201 202 203 205 205 206 208 208 209 211 212 213 215 216 217 218 219 220 220 221 222 223 224 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 230 231 232
iv
Analysis 30.1. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h. . Analysis 30.2. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h. . Analysis 30.3. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h. WHATS NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDEX TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
232 233 234 234 234 235 235 235 235
[Intervention Review]
Interventions for emergency contraception

Linan Cheng1 , Yan Che1 , A Metin Glmezoglu2 for Clinical Research and Training, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research (SIPPR), Shanghai, China. Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
2 UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank 1 Centre
Contact address: Linan Cheng, Centre for Clinical Research and Training, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research (SIPPR), 2140 Xie Tu Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. linanc2@163.com. Editorial group: Cochrane Fertility Regulation Group. Publication status and date: Edited (conclusions changed), published in Issue 8, 2012. Review content assessed as up-to-date: 18 July 2011. Citation: Cheng L, Che Y, Glmezoglu AM. Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD001324. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub4. Copyright 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ABSTRACT Background Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. Objectives To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy. Search methods The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/EMBASE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2011). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible. Data collection and analysis Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Quality assessment was also done by two review authors independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) using a xed-effect model with 95% condence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically signicant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied. Main results One hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (86/100). Meta-analysis indicated that mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) (20 trials; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) or low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) (11 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) were signicantly more effective than levonorgestrel (LNG), but the signicance was marginal when only high-quality studies were included (4 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone (25 trials; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). This difference was not statistically signicant when only high-quality trials
Interventions for emergency contraception (Review) Copyright 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
were considered (6 trials; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10). Ulipristal acetate (UPA) appeared more effective (2 trials; RR 0.63) than LNG at a marginal level (P = 0.09) within 72 hours of intercourse. Regarding effectiveness in relation to the time of administration, women who took LNG within 72 hours of intercourse were signicantly less likely to be pregnant than those who took it after 72 hours (4 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time affected the effectiveness of mifepristone and UPA. Single-dose LNG (1.5 mg) showed similar effectiveness as the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 h apart) (3 trials; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33). This conclusion was not modied by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration. Mifepristone (all doses) (3 trials; RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) and LNG (5 trials; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) were more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy. One trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone. No signicant difference of effectiveness was identied in this trial (996 women; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76). All methods of EC were safe. Nausea and vomiting occurred with oestrogen-containing EC methods and progestogen and antiprogestogen methods caused changes in subsequent menses. LNG users were more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date, but UPA users were more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Authors conclusions Intermediate-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) was superior to LNG and Yuzpe regimens. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) may be more effective than LNG (0.75 mg two doses), but this was not conclusive. UPA may be more effective than LNG. LNG proved to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was the most effective EC method and was the only EC method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Methods of emergency contraception Emergency contraception is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. This is a back-up and not a regular contraceptive method. Mifepristone, ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel are very effective with few adverse effects, and are preferred to an oestrogen and progestogen combined regimen. Levonorgestrel could be used in a single dose (1.5 mg) instead of two split doses (0.75 mg) 12 hours apart. The copper IUD is the most effective emergency contraceptive method and is the only emergency contraceptive method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.
S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S F O R T H E M A I N C O M P A R I S O N [Explanation]
[experimental intervention] compared with [control intervention] for [health problem]
Patient or population: [participants] with [health problem] Settings: [setting] Intervention: [experimental intervention] Comparison: [control intervention] Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Outcomes
Assumed risk [control] RR [value] ([value] to [value] [value]) ([value]) [value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) [experimental]
Corresponding risk
of Low risk population [value] per 1000
Observed number pregnancies [follow-up]
[Delete as appropriate] very low
Medium risk population [value] per 1000
low
moderate
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value])
high High risk population [value] per 1000 [value] per 1000 ([value] to [value])
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; [other abbreviations, e.g. OR, etc]
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BACKGROUND
Unwanted pregnancy is a common problem. Worldwide, about 44 million pregnancies end in abortion each year (Sedgh 2012). The standard approach to this problem has been primary prevention (contraception), backed up by induced abortion. However, for a long time, contraception in the world has meant only anticipatory contraception. The denition of the primary prevention of unintended pregnancy could and should expand to include post hoc contraception (Grimes 1997). Emergency contraception (EC) is dened as the use of a drug or device as an emergency measure to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. From this denition it follows that methods of EC are used after coitus but before pregnancy occurs, and that they are intended as a back-up for occasional use rather than a regular form of contraception (Van Look 1993). Although the terms morning after pill and after-sex pill are also used to describe the same approach, these can cause confusion regarding the timing and purpose, and are best avoided. EC implies something not to be used routinely (there are far more effective methods for regular contraception) but which can still prevent pregnancy if other options have failed or regular contraception was not used (Webb 1995). To date, no contraceptive method is 100% reliable and few people use their method perfectly each time they have sexual intercourse. Furthermore, EC is useful in cases of sexual assault. EC is especially important for outreach to the 4.6 million women at risk of pregnancy but not using a regular method by providing a bridge to use of an ongoing contraceptive method (Trussell 2012). EC is widely available in Western European and in China. However, use of this method is rising rapidly in developing countries. For example, the 2008-2009 DHS (Demographic and Health Survey) data showed that 22% of unmarried sexually active women in Albania had ever used EC. In Colombia, Kenya, and Nigeria, according to data from DHS, 10% to 16% of unmarried sexually active women ever used EC (ICEC 2012a, ICEC 2012b, ICEC 2012c). This proportion in Peru was 35% in 2010 (INEI 2011). However, EC is largely under-utilised in many other countries. Particularly, in many developing countries, the lack of access to EC may subject women to unsafe abortions, which contribute signicantly to maternal mortality and morbidity. alternative regimens has led to trials of the progestogen LNG, the anti-gonadotropin danazol, and the anti-progestins mifepristone and ulipristal acetate (UPA) (Trussell 2012). Like the Yuzpe regimen, these methods are recommended for use within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse although LNG and mifepristone had been tested up to 120 hours (ve days) for research purposes. The postcoital insertion of a copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is an option that can be used up to ve days after the estimated time of ovulation and can be left in the uterus as a long-term regular contraceptive method. The main side effects caused by hormonal emergency contraceptives are nausea and vomiting, which seem to be more frequent with oestrogen-containing regimens such as Yuzpe regimen and high-dose oestrogen alone compared to progestogen or anti-progestogen treatment. Mifepristone can cause menstrual delay, while LNG may cause earlier menses. IUD insertion can cause discomfort and requires trained staff and facilities. It is generally recommended that the copper IUD be avoided in women at high risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of an emergency contraceptive method is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. The present review aims to search systematically for, and combine, all evidence from randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials relating to the effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive methods in order to supply the best evidence currently available on which to base recommendations for clinical practice and further research.
OBJECTIVES
To determine, from the best evidence available, which emergency contraceptive method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.
METHODS
Although attempted throughout history, EC methods only started to become effective in the 1960s when hormonal regimens were rst introduced. Following the introduction of high-dose oestrogens, the so-called Yuzpe regimen involving the combined use of oestrogen (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g) and progestogen (levonorgestrel (LNG) 0.5 mg or dl-norgestrel 1 mg) repeated once 12 hours apart with the rst dose given within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, became popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Yuzpe 1977). Since the 1990s, there have been several different interventions available for EC (Glasier 1997). Interest in the development of
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing different EC methods, or comparing one method with expectant management or placebo were considered for inclusion. The unit of randomisation in all these studies was the individual. Only trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion.
5
Types of participants Women with regular menses requesting EC following unprotected intercourse. Women attending clinics for once-a-month contraception in the form of luteal phase contraceptives and menstrual regulation using mifepristone and prostaglandin analogues were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Types of interventions To be included, the intervention had to be applied to women seeking EC following unprotected intercourse. Those studies in which similar interventions were used by women as regular postcoital contraception were not eligible. Comparisons of different delivery systems such as advance provision or over-the-counter delivery, and any kind of educational interventions, were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials evaluating the following interventions were included in this review: 1. Any regimen versus nothing/placebo; 2. Hormonal emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs): comparison of different regimens: i) LNG versus Yuzpe, ii) Mifepristone versus LNG , iii) mifepristone versus Yuzpe, iv) mifepristone versus anordrin, v) mifepristone versus mifepristone + anordrin, vi) mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol, vii) mifepristone versus mifepristone + tamoxifen, viii) mifepristone versus danazol, ix) Yuzpe versus high-dose oestrogen, x) Yuzpe versus danazol, xi) UPA versus LNG, xii) mifepristone versus gestrinone, xiii) drug/dose comparisons, xiv) others; 3. IUD comparisons to ECPs. Combination treatments and comparison of these with other treatments alone or in combination were considered for inclusion when such data were available, including different doses. Types of outcome measures The review focused on clinical outcome measures. The primary outcome measure was the pregnancy rate in women receiving different regimens (or control). The full list of outcomes included: 1. Observed number of pregnancies (all women); 2. Ectopic pregnancy; 3. Side effects: any side effect, nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness,
fatigue, breast tenderness, diarrhoea, spotting or bleeding, others; 4. Menses: early, late. Several factors may affect the success of EC and the following subgroup analyses were considered when there were sufcient data in an appropriate format to allow such analyses. These factors were: 1. Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval): 24 hours, > 24-48 hours, > 48-72 hours, > 72-120 hours, > 120 hours; 2. Risk status: high-risk - women who had further acts of intercourse during the same cycle in which EC was used, low-risk - women without further acts of coitus during that cycle.
Search methods for identication of studies

The search strategy for this review included: ELECTRONIC SEARCHES
Central/ Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011)
PubMed: 2003 to July 2011
(contraceptives, postcoital OR contraception, postcoital OR postcoital contracept* OR emergency contraceptives OR emergency contraception OR morning after pill OR day after pill OR Yuzpe) AND (advance* OR home OR over the counter OR OTC OR behind the counter OR health services accessibility OR community pharmacy services OR access) limited to human and English
Biosis/EMBASE: 2003 to July 2011
s postcoitus contraceptive agent s emergenc?( )contracept? s morning( )after( )pill s Ru-486 s Yuzpe or post( )coital( )insertion or unprotected( )intercourse or mifepristone or
6
danazol or anordrin s s1 or s2 or s3 or s4 or s5 s prenatal( )diagnosis or chromosome( )aberration or menopause or infertility or neoplasm or spontaneous( )abortion or rheumatoid( )arthritis s s6 not s7 s s8 and py=2003:2006 s clinical study s clinical trial or DC=J2.40.10.25 s double blind procedure s crossover procedure s placebo s s10 or s11 or s12 or s13 or s14 s s9 and s15 s s16/human reduce duplicates
Popline: to July 2011
poscoito or anticoncepcionais pos-coito or contraceptives, postcoital, hormonal or postcoital contraceptives or postcoital contraception or postcoital contraceptive or emergency contraception or emergency contraceptives or emergency contraceptive or morning after pill or Yuzpe or postcoital insertion or unprotected intercourse or mifepristone or danazol or anordrin or Ru-486 or Ru486 or Ru 486 2. World Health Organization (WHO) RESOURCES (July 2011) We contacted HRP/WHO to seek any published or unpublished trials we had missed. 3. Emergency Contraception World Wide Web (July 2011) The Emergency Contraception World Wide Web server operated by the Ofce of Population Research at Princeton University, US, was checked to identify any relevant publications. 4. Pharmaceutical companies (July 2011) The pharmaceutical companies (Bayer, Beijing Zizhu Pharmaceutical Co., Biopharm Chemical Company, Gador SA, Gedeon Richter, Laboratoire HRA Pharma, Shanghai New Hualian Pharmaceutical Co., Shenyang No. 1 Pharmaceutical Co., Teva, Xianju Pharmaceutical Co.) that are marketing dedicated products for EC were contacted to check if they knew of any unpublished trials that were eligible for inclusion in the review. All Chinese companies, and Bayer, Laboratoire HRA Pharma, and Teva responded but they did not have information on, or knowledge of, other trials. 5. Others (July 2011) The usual steps in the search of a systematic review, such as searching the reference lists and contacting investigators active in this area, were performed.
(emergency contracept* / postcoital contracept* / morning after pill* / morning after contracept* / morning-after pill* / morningafter contracept* / day after pill* / day after contracept* / dayafter pill* / day-after contracept* / Yuzpe) & (advance* prov* / self administ* / self-administ* / home / over the counter / overthe-counter /otc/ behind the counter / advance prescript*/advance prescib* / pharmac* prov*/ access*) limited to English
CINAHL: to July 2011
(contraceptives or emergency contraceptive or morning after pill or Yuzpe or postcoital insertion or unprotected intercourse or mifepristone or danazol or anordrin or Ru-486 or Ru486 or Ru 486) AND (clinical and (article or study or trial or studies or trials) or controlled study or randomised controlled trial or randomised controlled trial or clinical study or single blind or phase 3 clinical study or phase 4 clinical study or crossover or placebo or placebos or allocated or allocation or allocate or assign or assigned or blinded or comparative or comparison or factorial or follow up or prospective or random or randomised or randomised or masked or masking or versus or vs) NOT (prenatal diagnosis or chromosome aberration or menopause or infertility or neoplasm or spontaneous abortion or rheumatoid arthritis)
LILACS: to July 2011
Data collection and analysis

Study selection The trials identied with our search strategy were initially checked for duplicates and relevance for the review by looking at the titles and abstracts. If it was not possible to exclude a publication by looking at the title or the abstract, the full paper was retrieved. Decisions on which trials to include were independently made by two review authors (LC and AMG/CO; LC and QC for the data from 2006 to 2011). Differences were resolved by discussion and consultation of other review authors if needed. Trials were
7
contraception, postcoital or anticoncepcion postcoital or anticoncepcao pos-coito or contraceptives, postcoital or anticonceptivos
excluded if the loss to follow-up was greater than 20%. There were no language preferences in the search or the selection of articles. Data extraction Systematic data extraction was carried out for each trial for the following variables: intervention and control treatment. Because of the large variation in mifepristone doses, we categorised the doses arbitrarily (before data extraction) as high (> 50 mg), mid (25-50 mg) and low (< 25 mg). We also conducted separate metaanalyses to validate our groupings of the different doses; clinical outcomes: observed number of pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, side effects (any, nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, fatigue, breast tenderness, spotting/bleeding, diarrhoea, others), timing of menses, coitus-treatment interval, high-/low-risk behaviour; methodology: random allocation techniques, blinding, post-randomisation exclusions, loss to follow-up; demographics: type of healthcare setting, city, country, total number of women included, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. For articles written in English, data extraction was independently done by two reviewers (LC and AMG/CO; LC and QC for the data from 2006 to 2011). However, several Chinese trials were published locally in Chinese and data extraction from these trials was performed by one review author (LC), for the data from 2006 to 2011 by LC and QC; and the data entry checked by another review author. Quality assessment Trials were given a quality score for the concealment of allocation as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). Study quality was independently assessed by two review authors (LC and AMG/CO). Disagreements were resolved by discussion with other review authors. Statistics Treatment effects were calculated using risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% condence intervals (95% CI) with the Review Manager software (RevMan 2011). A xed-effect model was applied. In case of heterogeneity (P < 0.10), the random-effects model was used to produce summary estimates (except when heterogeneity occurred in subgroup analyses where it was not possible to conduct separate analyses). Treatment effects might be affected by the quality of allocation concealment. Furthermore, more than half of the trials in the rst release of the review (in 1999) were from China, and it had been suggested that treatment effects might be different between trials conducted in China and elsewhere (WHO 1990; WHO 1998). Therefore, it was decided that, in the second release of the review (2004) these two potential sources of
heterogeneity should be investigated for the most important outcomes (observed pregnancies; any side effects; specic side effects: nausea, vomiting and breast tenderness), using meta regression in STATA (STATA 2001). Random-effects meta-regression analyses were conducted to take account of both within-trial variances of treatment effects and the residual between-trial heterogeneity (data not shown) (Thompson 2002). In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted in STATA for all comparisons pooling data from more than two trials (data not shown) (STATA 2001). Interaction tests were conducted using logistic regression with SAS software. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses All reports were scrutinised for the presence of ITT analyses. For outcomes with loss to follow-up the number of women with outcome data was taken as the denominator (available case analysis). In the LNG versus Yuzpe comparison and LNG versus mid-dose mifepristone: outcomes for missing patients were imputed under two extreme scenarios (i.e. all missing in one arm had an event and all missing in the other arm did not have an event and vice versa).
RESULTS
Description of studies
See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies. One hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Eighty-six trials were conducted in China. All Chinese trials were relatively recent (earliest trial published in 1993) indicating the interest in EC research in this country. Except for the Ellertson 2003, Glasier 2010, Von Hertzen 2002, WHO 1998 and WHO 1999 trials, all had been conducted in a single country, although some were multicentre trials. WHO trials were multinational involving large numbers of diverse populations. Eighty one studies were excluded. Most of these were case-series, reports without a comparison group or meta-analysis. Six studies (Dong 2007; Li F 2005; Liu Y 2002; Tian Q 2000; Turok 2010; Zhang J 1999) compared Cu-IUDs versus mifepristone with or without LNG by informed choice (i.e. not randomly allocated). Only one of the excluded trials was excluded on the basis of high loss to follow-up (20%) (Mo 2004). Two studies compared Cu-IUD either directly with an ECP (LNG, mifepristone) or allocated those women attending clinics between 72-120 hours to IUD and those attending before 72 hours to two alternative ECPs (Su 2001; Wang C 2000) randomly. Eighteen out of 100 trials had more than two treatment arms. The majority of trials used mifepristone, followed by those using LNG and then the Yuzpe regimen. Thirty-six trials involved dose8
comparison studies of mifepristone in doses from 5 mg to 600 mg. Thirty-one trials compared LNG with mifepristone. Five trials compared LNG with the Yuzpe regimen. Three trials (Arowojolu 2002; Dada 2010; Von Hertzen 2002) compared a split dose with a single dose of LNG and one trial compared a 24-hour with a 12-hour double-dose regimen of LNG. Two trials (Creinin 2006; Glasier 2010) compared UPA, a second-generation progesterone receptor modulator, with LNG. One trial (Wu 2010) compared mifepristone with gestrinone. Other interventions were high-dose oestrogen, danazol and Cu-IUD. Anordrin is a steroid hormone with weak oestrogenic effects and is only used in China as a visitingcontraceptive pill (a type of oral pills that is used for couples who do not cohabit but visit home for a short period. It can start at any day during a menstrual cycle, one pill a day continuing no less than 14 days). In Chinese EC trials, investigators used locally manufactured mifepristone and LNG. Most of the trials report observed number of pregnancies in comparison to expected number of pregnancies according to estimated probability of pregnancy on the day of the menstrual cycle when unprotected intercourse took place. This information is provided in the Characteristics of included studies table without a formal summary analysis. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were similar with some minor differences between trials . In general, women attending after 72 hours (after 120 h in Cu-IUD, some mifepristone and LNG trials), with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with irregular menstrual periods and those using hormonal contraception were excluded. All trials except that of Sang 1999 started the intervention as soon as the women came to the clinic. Sang 1999 included only women who had unprotected intercourse 24 to 96 hours before attending the clinic.
Risk of bias in included studies

Chen 2002Twenty-ve trials (Arowojolu 2002; Ashok 2002; Creinin 2006; Dada 2010; Ellertson 2003; Glasier 1992; Glasier 2010; Hamoda 2004; He CH 2002; Ho 1993; Liu 2000; Ngai 2005; Qi 2000b; Sang 1999; Van Santen 1985a; Von Hertzen 2002; Wang SZ 2001; Webb 1992; WHO 1998; WHO 1999; Wu 1999a; Wu 2002; Wu 2010; Xiao 2002; Zuo 1999) had adequate concealment of allocation. Most of the remaining trials had insufcient information on randomisation and concealment of allocation, and only used terms such as randomly allocated. Twenty-one trials were reported as double-blinded (Arowojolu 2002; Creinin 2006; Dada 2010; Ellertson 2003; He CH 2002; Lin 2000; Liu 2000; Ngai 2005; Qi 2000b; Van Santen 1985a; Von Hertzen 2002; Wang SZ 2001; Wei RH 2002; WHO 1998; WHO 1999; Wu 1999a; Wu 2002; Wu 2010; Xiao 2002; Zhang
L 2005; Zuo 1999), and two as single-blinded (Glasier 2010; Sang 1999). ITT analysis was available (or possible) for the Creinin 2006, Glasier 2010, Ho 1993, Ngai 2005, WHO 1998 and Xiao 2002 trials and not mentioned in the other studies. Thirty-four trials (Arowojolu 2002; Ashok 2002;Chen 2002; Cheng 1999a; Creinin 2006; Dada 2010; Ding 2005; Ellertson 2003; Fan 2001; Farajkhoda 2009 Glasier 1992; Glasier 2010; Hamoda 2004; He CH 2002; Ho 1993; Lai Z 2004; Liang 2001; Liu L 2001; Ngai 2005; Qi 2000b; Rowlands 1983; Sang 1999; Van Santen 1985a; Von Hertzen 2002; Wang Y 2003; Webb 1992; WHO 1998; WHO 1999; Wu 1999a; Wu 2002; Wu 2010; Xiao 2002; Zhang Y 1998; Zuo 1999) reported the number of lost follow-up or postrandomisation exclusion. The average proportion of loss to follow-up or post-randomisation exclusion was 3.3% (range 0.2% to 16.9%). Although several trials did not mention post-randomisation exclusions, these studies did not explicitly mention ITT analyses either. As there were only a few reported pregnancies, it was possible that some pregnancies could well be excluded after randomisation (Webb 1992). In general, side effects were assessed by women themselves on diary charts. The trial by Askalani 1987 was included in the review because random allocation was explicitly mentioned. Unfortunately, no other methodological details were available for this trial. One trial (Webb 1992) was stopped early for effectiveness reasons. Fifteen trials reported appropriate power calculations for the sample size (Arowojolu 2002; Ashok 2002; Dada 2010; Ellertson 2003; Creinin 2006; Glasier 2010; Hamoda 2004; Ngai 2005; Sang 1999; Von Hertzen 2002; Webb 1992; WHO 1998; WHO 1999; Wu 2010; Xiao 2002). From the 2007 update, the review authors revised the use of the allocation concealment score to be more consistent with Cochrane procedures. This score referred to the concealment of allocation before assignment, and was not an overall quality score. Studies from the initial review were recorded for consistency in the allocation concealment score. The change did not alter the results or conclusions.
Effects of interventions
See: Summary of ndings for the main comparison 1. IUD versus expectant management Askalani 1987 compared Cu-IUD (Cu-T 200) insertion with expectant management in women requesting EC within four days of unprotected intercourse. Notwithstanding the ethical aspects of this trial, the report was brief and only reported data on number of pregnancies. There was a signicantly higher number of pregnancies in the expectant management group (RR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.26) (Figure 1; Analysis 1.1).
Figure 1. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control, outcome: 1.1 Observed number of pregnancies.
2. LNG versus Yuzpe regimen Five trials (three Chinese (Ho 1993; Sheng A 2002; Sun MX 2007), one Iranian (Farajkhoda 2009) and one multinational ( WHO 1998)) compared the Yuzpe regimen with LNG 0.75 mg given twice 12 hours apart The ve trials provided data on 4221 women. LNG was more effective in preventing pregnancy than the Yuzpe regimen (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) (Figure 2; Analysis 2.1). Additional analysis of the WHO 1998 trial data indicated that the effect was not modied by whether the women abstained from further acts of intercourse or not (P = 0.61 for the interaction test) or by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration (P = 0.58 for the interaction test). Figure 2. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, outcome: 2.1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
The need for repeat dose was less with LNG (WHO 1998; RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). LNG was associated with signicantly fewer complaints of nausea (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.46), vomiting (RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.31), dizziness (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85) and fatigue (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.55 to
0.71) than Yuzpe. The difference was marginally signicant but nevertheless less in terms of headache (WHO 1998; RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00), breast tenderness (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01) and abdominal pain (WHO 1998; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.70
10
to 1.01) with LNG. The risks of hot ushes (Farajkhoda 2009; RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54), spotting/bleeding (Ho 1993; Sun MX 2007; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15) and the time of menses resumption after treatment (Ho 1993; Sheng A 2002; Sun MX 2007; RR 1.19: 95% CI 0.99 to 1.44) were similar in both groups (Analysis 2.6; Analysis 2.7). 3. LNG split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours One double-blind randomised multicentre trial conducted in
China (Ngai 2005) compared LNG split-dose in two different regimens (24 h vs 12 h apart). The effectiveness was similar with either regimen (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.82) (Figure 3; Analysis 3.1). This conclusion was not modied by whether the women abstained from further acts of intercourse or not (Analysis 3.2). Additional analysis of the trial data indicated that, among women who received the 12-hour regimen, the high-risk participants were signicantly more likely to have a pregnancy than their low-risk counterparts. This association was not observed among women who received the 24-hour regimen.
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 h versus 12 h, outcome: 3.1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
4. LNG single dose versus LNG split dose Three trials compared regimens of LNG 1.5 mg single dose with LNG 0.75 mg two doses 12 hours apart. Arowojolu 2002 recruited 1160 women who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 hours, and Von Hertzen 2002 recruited 4136 and Dada 2010 recruited 3022 women who attending the clinics within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically signicant difference in preventing pregnancy (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33) (Figure 4; Analysis 4.1) between the two regimens. Additional analysis of the
Von Hertzen 2002 trial data indicated that this conclusion was not modied by whether the women abstained from further acts of intercourse or not (P = 0.18 for the interaction test), or by the time elapsed (within or after 72 h) from intercourse to treatment administration (P = 0.90 for the interaction test). There were no statistically signicant differences in most types of the side effects between the two regimens except that the frequencies of headache (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30) and heavy menses (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.04) of the single-dose regimen were signicantly higher than those of the two-dose regimen (Analysis 4.6).
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single versus split-dose, outcome: 4.1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
11
5. Mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) versus LNG Twenty trials (Chen 2008; Cheng 2009; Gan XH 2007; Han 1999a; Hu X 2003; Li A 2000; Li J 2005; Liang 2001; Liao 2003; Liu RQ 2009; Qi M 2003; Shao XY 2010; Su 2001; Sun 2000; Sun P 2003; Wang Q 2000; Wang Y 2003; Xu 2000; Xu Z 2000; Zhang JQ 2000 ), all conducted in China, compared LNG (2422 women, all used split-dose) with mid-dose mifepristone (2595 women). Overall, effectiveness of mid-dose mifepristone was better than that of LNG (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) (Figure 5; Analysis 5.1). This result was conrmed with simulated ITT analyses; when
it was supposed that all missing had the event in the LNG group, but none in the mifepristone group, the estimated RR was 0.50 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.77) and when it was supposed that all missing did not have event in LNG group, but did in the mifepristone group, the estimated RR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.88). The overall side effect rate was reported in 13 trials and mifepristone was more tolerable than LNG (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82; Analysis 5.5). More women who took mifepristone had a delay in menses than those who took LNG (12 trials; RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.54; Analysis 5.7).
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg versus mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg), outcome: 5.1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
6. Low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) versus LNG Nine Chinese (Bu 2006; Dong 2009; Li W 2002; Lin 2000; Liu 2000; Pei 2001; Sheng A 2002; Wang C 2000; Wu 1999a), one UK (Hamoda 2004) and one multinational WHO trial (Von Hertzen 2002) compared LNG (4856 women) with low-dose mifepristone
(3480 women). There was a statistically signicant difference in effectiveness between LNG and low-dose mifepristone regimens when all studies were included (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) (Figure 6; Analysis 6.1). When only high-quality studies (Hamoda 2004; Liu 2000; Von Hertzen 2002; Wu 1999a) were included in the meta-analysis, the difference was not signicant at the 0.05
12
level (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01) but it was signicant at the 0.10 level (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95). Additional analysis of data from one trial (Von Hertzen 2002) indicated that the above conclusions were not modied by whether women abstained from further acts of intercourse or not (P = 0.14 for the interaction test) or (Hamoda 2004; Von Hertzen 2002) by the time elapsed (within or after 72 h) from intercourse to treatment administration (P = 0.99 for the interaction test). When assuming that all the loss of follow-up being pregnant in LNG group but none of the loss being pregnant in mifepristone group, results indicated that mifepristone was associated with signicantly lower risk of pregnancy than LNG (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98) (Figure 7; Analysis 6.8). This
association was not evident when it was supposed that there was no loss in LNG but all loss in mifepristone with pregnancy (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.1.05) (Figure 8; Analysis 6.9). Three trials reported most types of side effects (Hamoda 2004; Von Hertzen 2002; Wu 1999a). Only a few signicant differences were identied between the two regimens in these trials. Menstrual delay was less frequent (RR 1.75; 95% CI 1.51 to 2.03) and early return of menstruation was more frequent (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.58) in the LNG group than in the mifepristone group (Analysis 6.7). Low-dose mifepristone was associated with lower risk of bleeding in the rst days than LNG (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; Analysis 6.6).
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 6 Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg versus mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg), outcome: 6.1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
13
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 6 Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg versus mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg), outcome: 6.8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in mifepristone).
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 6 Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg versus mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg), outcome: 6.9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in mifepristone).
There were no trials that compared LNG with high-dose (> 50 mg) mifepristone. 7. UPA (all doses) versus LNG UPA is a second-generation progesterone receptor modulator. Creinin 2006 compared LNG split-dose regimen with UPA unmicronised 50 mg single-dose orally within 72 hours. Glasier 2010 compared LNG single-dose regimen with UPA micronised 30 mg single-dose orally within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. Since both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA, US) accepted the bioequivalence of the two regimens, data from the two trials were combined for meta-analysis in this review. UPA appeared to have prevented more pregnancies (RR 0.63) than LNG within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse. However, the difference was not statistically signicant at the 0.05 level (95% CI 0.37 to 1.07) but was signicant at the 0.10 level (95% CI 0.40 to 0.98). When all the ve-day data from the Glasier 2010 trial were combined with the three-day data from Creinin 2006 trial, the pregnancy rate was sta14
tistically signicantly lower among women using UPA (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99) (Figure 9; Analysis 7.1) than among LNG users. When the data were stratied by time of treatment, no signicant difference in pregnancy between LNG and UPA regimens was identied during any segment of time. It was noted that the sample size of any subgroup of data was relatively small. Somewhat unexpectedly, further analysis showed that UPA prevented more pregnancies in the low-risk population (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97). Women who took UPA were less likely to have earlier return of menses (return before the expected date), compared with those who received LNG (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.50) and UPA users were more likely to have later return of next menses (return after the expected date) than those who received LNG (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92) (Analysis 7.8). Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: 7 Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg versus UPA (all doses), outcome: 7.1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
8. LNG versus anordrin One trial from China (Xu Z 2000) compared LNG split-dose regimen with anordrin (7.5 mg two dose 12 h apart, then 7.5 mg/day for eight days) in 172 women. No difference in the risk of pregnancy between the two regimens was identied (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.11 to 3.89) (Analysis 8.2). However, the sample size of this trail may be too small to identify a subtle difference between the two regimens.
10. Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) Twenty-ve trials were included in this comparison. Seventeen trials were two-arm comparisons of mifepristone 25 mg versus mifepristone 10 mg (Chen 2009; Du 2002; Fan 2001; Han L 2001; Lai Z 2004; Qi 2000b; Sang 1999; Wang SZ 2001; Wang L 2004; Wang J 2006; Wang ZW 2008; Wei RH 2002; Wei H 2011; Xiao 2002; Xie HH 2010; Zeng MY 2008; Zuo 1999 ). Seven trials had three arms (Cheng 1999a; Ding 2005; Tan L 2003; WHO 1999; Zhang Y 1998; Zhang Y 2002; Zhao J 2003) and one trial had four comparisons (Cao 1999). Except for the WHO trial (WHO 1999), all other trials were conducted in China. Although the pooled data showed that the mid-dose regimen was more effective than the low-dose regimen (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; Analysis 10.1), this nding was not evident when the analysis was limited to the six trials with adequate allocation concealment (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10) (Qi 2000b; Sang 1999; Wang SZ 2001; WHO 1999; Xiao 2002; Zuo 1999). Additional analysis of the trials Cheng 1999a, WHO 1999 and Xiao 2002 indicated that the results were not modied when women who abstained
15
9. Mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus mifepristone low dose (5 mg) Two trials (Lan XL 2006; Zhang Y 1998) compared the effectiveness of mifepristone 10 mg to that of mifepristone 5 mg among 392 women in China. The effectiveness was similar between the two regimens (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.17) (Analysis 9.1).
from further acts of intercourse were not included (P = 0.77 for the interaction test). Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with higher risks of bleeding (11 trials; RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.55 to 2.20) and menstrual delay (22 trials; RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.47) than low-dose mifepristone (Analysis 10.4). 11. Mifepristone mid dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid dose (25 mg) Thirteen Chinese trials (Cao 1999; Chen 2002 Cheng 1999a; Fang 2000; Han 1996; Li 2000; Li H 2000; Lou C 2002; Tan 1999; Xie 1998; Yang F 2003; Zhang JQ 2000; Zhao J 2003) compared mifepristone 50 mg with mifepristone 25 mg. The metaanalysis indicated that the two regimens had similar effectiveness (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.27; Analysis 11.1), but the 50 mg regimen was associated with a signicantly higher probability of menstrual delay (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56; Analysis 11.5) than the 25 mg regimen. One trial (Zhang X 1999a) compared three different regimens of mifepristone (1) mifepristone 25 mg orally two doses 12 hours apart; (2) mifepristone 10 mg/day for ve days and (3) mifepristone 10 mg/day for three days. It is worth noting that the sample size of this trial was too small to make a rm conclusion. 12. Mifepristone high dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) Six trials, one with two (Zheng A 2005; 600 mg vs 25 mg), one with four (Cao 1999; 100 mg vs 50 mg vs 25 mg vs 10 mg) and four with three (WHO 1999; 600 mg vs 50 mg vs 10 mg; Ding 2005; 75 mg vs 50 mg vs 10 mg; Tan L 2003; 150 mg vs 50 mg vs 12.5 mg; Zhang Y 2002; 100 mg vs 50 mg vs 10 mg) treatment arms were included in the analysis comparing a high-dose mifepristone regimen with a low-dose regimen. In the Cao 1999 and Tan L 2003 trials, the high-dose mifepristone regimen showed lower risk of pregnancy than the low-dose regimen, whereas in the WHO 1999 and Ding 2005 trials, the risk of pregnancy was similar between the two regimens. The overall side effects (RR 13.04; 95% CI 5.13 to 33.15), spotting/bleeding (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.89 to 2.95) and delays of subsequent menses (4 trials; RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.37) were signicantly more frequent in the high-dose mifepristone group than in the low-dose one (Analysis 12.4). 13. Mifepristone high dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid dose (25-50 mg) Eight Chinese trials (Cao 1999; Ding 2005; Li H 2000; Qian 1999; Tan L 2003; Xie 1998; Zhang Y 1998; Zheng A 2005) and one WHO trial (WHO 1999) were included in this comparison. The WHO trial had three study arms (600 mg, 50 mg and 10 mg). The frequency of pregnancy was similar between high- and mid-dose groups (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.72; Analysis 13.1). However, bleeding episodes (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56),
overall side effects (RR 2.64; 95% CI 1.57 to 4.43) and delays in subsequent menses (8 trials; RR 1.56; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.78) were signicantly more frequent in the high-dose regimen group (Analysis 13.3; Analysis 13.4; Analysis 13.5). 14. Mifepristone versus Yuzpe regimen Three trials conducted in the UK compared high-dose mifepristone (100 mg and 600 mg) with the Yuzpe regimen (Webb 1992 (600 mg), Glasier 1992 (600 mg) and Ashok 2002 (100 mg)). The Webb 1992 trial included danazol as a third arm. This trial was stopped early because mifepristone showed higher effectiveness than the Yuzpe and danazol (number of pregnancies: 0/195 with mifepristone vs 9/193 with danazol vs 5/191 with Yuzpe). The risk of pregnancy among mifepristone users was only 14% of that among the Yuzpe users (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41; Analysis 14.1). One trial investigated whether the effectiveness was inuenced by high- or low-risk behaviour (Glasier 1992). No pregnancy was observed among women who abstained from further intercourse, but the sample size of this study was relatively small. There were signicantly fewer complaints of nausea (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76), vomiting (RR 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20), headache (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91), dizziness (Ashok 2002; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80), fatigue (Ashok 2002; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95), low abdominal pain (Ashok 2002; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95), hot ushes (Ashok 2002; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83) and tiredness (Ashok 2002; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) observed in women receiving mifepristone (Analysis 14.6). The delay in menses was signicantly more frequently reported by women receiving mifepristone compared to those who used the Yuzpe regimen (RR 2.83; 95% CI 2.30 to 3.47; Analysis 14.7). 15. Mifepristone versus danazol Two trials (Webb 1992; Yang 2001) compared mifepristone (50 mg or 600 mg) with danazol (400 mg or 600 mg repeated after 12 h). Mifepristone showed signicantly lower risk of pregnancy (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55; Analysis 15.1) and lower risk of any side effect (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95; Analysis 15.2) than danazol. Meta-analysis indicated that delay of menses was similar between women using mifepristone and users of danazol ( RR 2.39; 0.56 to 10.27; Analysis 15.4), although the former showed a signicantly higher risk of menstrual delay than the latter in one trial (Webb 1992). 16. Mifepristone versus anordrin Seven trials (Chen 2001; Fu X 2000; Han 1995; Liu L 2001; Wang 1999; Xu Z 2000; Yang 2001) compared mid-dose mifepristone with anordrin in different regimens (the total dosage ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg). Mifepristone was more effective in preventing pregnancy than anordrin (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.63; Analysis
16
16.1). Mifepristone had fewer overall side effects than anordrin (4 trials; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91), but no signicant differences were evident in spotting/bleeding (Analysis 16.4) and delay in the onset of next menses (Analysis 16.5).
21. Mifepristone versus Cu-IUD Liu L 2002 compared mifepristone 50 mg with Cu-IUD. One pregnancy occurred in the mifepristone group and none in the Cu-IUD group (RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.67; Analysis 21.1). However, the sample size of this study was relatively small (195 women with mifepristone vs 95 women with Cu-IUD). Cu-IUD users showed signicantly higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone users (RR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; Analysis 21.6)
17. Mifepristone low- or mid-dose versus mifepristone plus anordrin Five trials (Han 1995; Han 1996; Lou X 2005; Sang 1999; Zhang YM 2002) compared low- or mid-doses of mifepristone with mifepristone combined with anordrin. The risks of pregnancies in the two comparison groups were similar (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.41). However, the combination regimen showed signicantly higher risks of nausea (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.65), vomiting (RR 0.26: 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50), fatigue (RR 0.66: 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89) and menstrual delay (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97), but a signicantly lower risk of spotting/bleeding (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.43) than the mifepristone-only regimen (Analysis 17.4).
22. Mifepristone versus gestrinone Wu 2010 conducted a randomised double-blind multicentre clinical trial (996 women) comparing mifepristone 10 mg with gestrinone 10 mg (a 19-nortestosterone derivative with anti-progestagenic, anti-oestrogenic and anti-gonadotropic properties). There were no statistically signicant differences in preventing pregnancy (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76; Analysis 22.1) and in the overall side effects (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; Analysis 22.2) between the two medications. Mifepristone was associated with higher risk of menstrual delay than gestrinone (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.82; Analysis 22.3). Gestrinone showed signicantly higher risk of early return to next menses than mifepristone (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69; Analysis 22.3)
18. Mifepristone (25 mg) versus mifepristone with methotrexate (5 mg) Two trials (Chen 2002a and Zeng XY 2007) compared mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg) regimen with regimen of mifepristone combined with methotrexate (5 mg). Two women were pregnant in the mifepristone alone group, and none in the combination group. The difference was not statistically signicant (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.32 to 28.36), Since only 100 women were recruited in each arm, the non-signicant result may be due partly to small sample sizes of these two trials (Analysis 18.1).
23. Danazol versus Yuzpe regimen Danazol was compared to the Yuzpe regimen in one trial (Rowlands 1983) and to the Yuzpe regimen and mifepristone (600 mg) in a three-arm trial (Webb 1992). The sample sizes of both trials were not enough to make a rm conclusion on whether danazol and the Yuzpe regimen differed in efcacy (RR 1.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 5.22). Nausea (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.47) and vomiting (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.27) were statistically signicantly less common in danazol group (Analysis 23.4). No signicant differences of complaints of breast tenderness (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.72; Analysis 23.4) and delay of menses (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.74 to 3.18; Analysis 23.5) were identied between the two regimens. Other side effects were not reported in this trial.
19. Mifepristone low dose versus mifepristone with tamoxifen (20 mg) One double-blind trial (He CH 2002) compared low-dose mifepristone with mifepristone combined with tamoxifen (20 mg). There were no statistically signicant differences in preventing pregnancy (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 28.60) and delay of next menses (RR 1.79; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.43) between the two regimens (Analysis 19.1).
24. High-dose oestrogen versus Yuzpe regimen One trial conducted in the early 1980s compared the Yuzpe regimen with a ve-day ethinyl oestradiol 5 mg regimen (standard treatment at that time) in a double-blind trial (Van Santen 1985a). One pregnancy in the Yuzpe group (200 women) and two in the ethinyl oestradiol group (184 women) were reported. The difference of risks of pregnancy was not statistically signicant (RR 2.17; 95% CI 0.20 to 23.77; Analysis 24.1).
20. Mifepristone low dose versus mifepristone with misoprostol (200 g) Wu 2002 compared low-dose mifepristone with mifepristone combined with misoprostol (200 g). There were more pregnancies with the mifepristone alone regimen but the difference was not statistically signicant (7/300 with mifepristone vs 2/299 with misoprostol; RR 3.49; 95% CI 0.73 to 16.65; Analysis 20.1). The combination regimen showed signicantly higher risks of abdominal pain than the mifepristone alone regimen (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93; Analysis 20.6).
25. Half-dose Yuzpe regimen versus standard Yuzpe regimen

17
Ellertson et al. (Ellertson 2003) compared the standard Yuzpe regimen (of two doses 12 h apart) to a half dose given only once, and to a standard regimen replacing norgestrel with norethindrone in a three-arm trial. There was no statistically signicant difference in effectiveness (23/648 with half-dose vs 17/675 with standard dose; RR 1.41; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.61; Analysis 25.1) between the half dose and the standard regimen. The side-effect prole was signicantly improved with the half dose (any side effect: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.93; Analysis 25.2; nausea: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; vomiting: RR 0.50; 0.36 to 0.69; Analysis 25.3).
26. Risk status Eleven trials (Cheng 1999a; Dada 2010; Glasier 1992; Glasier 2010; Ho 1993; Ngai 2005; Von Hertzen 2002; WHO 1998; WHO 1999; Xiao 2002; Zhang JQ 2000) reported the numbers of women of high-risk status (4852 women had further acts of intercourse during the same cycle in which EC was used) and of low-risk status (14,848 women without further acts of coitus during that cycle). We pooled the pregnancy numbers of each of the two groups of women regardless the regimens they used. Result of meta-analysis indicates that the risk of pregnancy was statistically signicantly higher in the high-risk group of women (RR 2.67; 95% CI 2.11 to 3.39; Analysis 26.1) than in the lowrisk group.
results indicate that the effectiveness of LNG is increased by taking it earlier. The non-signicant linear trend is perhaps due to small sample size of available data. Women taking Yuzpe within 24 hours after unprotected intercourse had signicantly lower risk of pregnancy than women taking it between 24-48 hours (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.88; Analysis 30.1). Moreover, the latter group of women had signicantly lower risk of pregnancy than women taking it between 48-72 hours (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89; Analysis 30.2). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time interval affects the effectiveness of anti-progestin ECPs (including mifepristone Analysis 27.1, Analysis 27.2, Analysis 27.3, Analysis 27.4 and UPA, Analysis 29.1; Analysis 29.2; Analysis 29.3; Analysis 29.4). Ectopic pregnancies Five cases of ectopic pregnancy were identied among the included 100 trials. Of them, WHO 1999 reported two cases after 50 mg mifepristone, Sang 1999 reported one case after 10 mg mifepristone, and Su 2001 and Von Hertzen 2002 reported one case each after split-dose of LNG. Pregnancy outcome after ECP failure Eleven healthy infants were reported to be delivered following the use of ECPs (Arowojolu 2002; Glasier 2010; Webb 1992) in this review. Seven mothers used LNG, two used the Yuzpe regimen, one used danazol and one used mifepristone.
27. Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) Seven trials reported the time of coitus-treatment interval. Ashok 2002, Creinin 2006, Ho 1993 and WHO 1998, compared three different time intervals elapsed since intercourse ( 24 h vs > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h) ; Hamoda 2004 and Von Hertzen 2002 compared two different time intervals (within 72 h vs > 72 h); Glasier 2010 compared ve different time intervals ( 24 h vs 25-48 h vs 49-72 h vs 73-96 h vs 97-120 h). Additional analysis was done by pooling all the data by time intervals and types of medications: progesterone-only ECP (LNG), anti-progestin ECPs (mifepristone and UPA ) and Yuzpe . Comparing the risk of pregnancy of women taking LNG on the rst day with those taking it on the second or the third day, the difference was not signicant at the 0.05 level. This risk was also similar between the second and the third day. We performed further Chi2 test for linear trend on the risk of pregnancy during the few days after unprotected intercourse. The linear trend was not signicant at the 0.05 level (P = 0.106). However, compared with women taking LNG after 48 hours, those taking it within 48 hours appeared less likely to be pregnant (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.11;Analysis 28.3). Moreover, comparing women taking LNG within 72 hours of intercourse with those taking it after 72 hours, the former had a signicantly lower risk of pregnancy than the latter (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84; Analysis 28.4). These
DISCUSSION
Nineteen new trials have been added to this review since its last publication in 2008. Although, as before, most trials were conducted in China, the availability of several large multicentre trials was helpful in increasing the power and generalisation of study ndings of this review. The available evidence indicated that EC is a safe and effective contraceptive method. Although the risk of pregnancy following unprotected intercourse had been overestimated in previous trials (e.g. Ellertson 2003), a substantial percentage of expected pregnancies can be prevented with the use of this method. Since it was evident that emergency contraceptives were effective, most recent studies on EC were aimed to reduce the dosage or the times of medication administration so that clients compliance or cost of treatment, or both, could be improved. Because of this reason, many EC trials were designed as equivalence trials rather than superiority trials (trying to show that two treatments are as good as each other rather than one is more effective than the other). It is common to claim an equivalent effectiveness when the difference between two treatment groups is not statistically signicant. Nevertheless, only a few trials in this review calculated their sample sizes on the basis of an equivalence approach
18
that usually requires a large study sample. Thus conclusion may not be reliable when the study sample size is not enough. Another concern of this review is that blindness of treatments was uncommon in most trials. However, since pregnancy was an objective outcome, the lack of blindness probably had little inuence on results. Among ECPs, the focus was on mifepristone and LNG. Both of the methods appeared to be more effective and better tolerated than the classical Yuzpe regimen. However, the Yuzpe regimen may still be the only available regimen in some places. The results of the Ellertson trial suggested that the half dose Yuzpe regimen had a more favourable side-effect prole. It was difcult to make any conclusion regarding the relative effectiveness. Further research is needed to narrow the CIs, in other words, to increase the precision of the estimate. It is probably safe to continue the standard Yuzpe regimen where mifepristone or LNG is not available. Three trials investigated the efcacies of LNG 1.5 mg single-dose and 0.75 mg two-dose regimens. These three trials were all of good quality and a heterogeneity test indicated that the variation in study outcomes between trials was not statistically signicant. The result of the meta-analysis (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33) suggested that the effect of the single-dose regimen was similar to that of two-dose regimen. Hence we can safely conclude that the single-dose is clinically equivalent to the split-dose regimen. One double-blind randomised multicentre trial conducted in China (Ngai 2005) that compared two regimens of LNG split-dose administrated at 24 hours or 12 hours apart showed that the two regimens had similar overall effectiveness (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.82). However, among high-risk women, the 24-hour splitdose regimen appeared more effective than the 12-hour split-dose regimen, although this association was not statistically signicant. These ndings are of important clinical implication because a clients compliance to the timing of the second dose is a crucial issue. This is the case for both LNG and Yuzpe regimens. LNG versus mid-dose mifepristone trials were not methodologically sound in terms of allocation concealment. It is therefore not clear how robust the meta-analysis results are. This updated review indicates that the anti-progestin mifepristone is the most effective hormonal emergency contraceptive. For example, the mid-dose of mifepristone (25-50 mg) proved signicantly more effective than the standard LNG regimen. This nding was evident in the 2004 version of this review; with addition of new reports, the difference of effectiveness between mifepristone and LNG regimens became larger and the estimated CIs were narrowed. More women who took mid-dose mifepristone had a delay in menses than LNG users, although other types of side effects were less common among mifepristone users. Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone in preventing pregnancy in the meta-analysis of 25 trials (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). However, limiting the data to the six
trials with good study quality led to a RR of 0.75 with a 95% CI ranging from 0.50 to 1.10, indicating that effectiveness difference between low- and mid-dose mifepristone regimens is not very afrmative. As expected, menstrual delay was more common with the mid-dose regimen. UPA is a second-generation progesterone receptor modulator, which has been marked in Europe since 2009 and was approved by FDA in 2010. It inhibits or signicantly delays follicular rupture for over ve days if given immediately before ovulation by postponing the luteinising hormone (LH) peak concentration (Brache 2010). As a new drug entity, UPA is only available on prescription in Europe and US. Two trials compared UPA (Creinin 2006: unmicronised 50 mg single-dose; Glasier 2010: micronised 30 mg) with LNG 1.5 mg single dose. The bioequivalence of the two regimens was accepted by the EMA and FDA. Data from these trials were thus combined in a meta-analysis. UPA appeared more effective (RR 0.63) than LNG within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, which was signicant at a marginal level (P = 0.08). When the 72- to 120-hour data from the Glasier 2010 trial were included in meta-analysis, UPA was associated with lower risk of pregnancy than LNG and the difference was signicant at the 0.05 level. Since the Creinin 2006 trial did not recruit participants who had unprotected intercourse after 72 hours, the rationale of combining all ve-day data from the Glasier 2010 trial in the analysis is debatable. It is noted that the Glasier 2010 trial was single blind (participants blinded, investigator not blinded), slightly more participants were excluded in the UPA group than in the control group in the analysis and the manufacturer was involved in trial. We may need more trials conducted by independent investigators to make a rm conclusion. Gestrinone is a 19-nortestosterone derivative with anti-progestagenic, anti-oestrogenic and anti-gonadotropic properties. Only one trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone (10 mg), and no signicant difference of effectiveness between the two medications was identied. We also compared the efcacies of mifepristone 50 mg with 25 mg, and mifepristone 10 mg with 5 mg. This update review included 14 trials for the two comparisons. Results showed that either paired regimens had similar effectiveness of pregnancy prevention and similar probability of delayed menses. Hence, we conclude that there are no important differences between the paired regimens. We assessed the effects of a womans risk status and time elapsed after intercourse on the success of treatments. Participants and pregnancy outcomes were stratied by the two factors. Results showed that neither womans risk status nor the time elapsed after intercourse impacted the comparative effectiveness between LNG single dose and split-dose and between LNG and the Yuzpe regimen. We also conducted ITT simulation analyses (for main comparisons) with extreme scenarios to see if post-randomisation exclusions and losses to follow-up could affect the results, but did
19
not nd any substantive threat to the validity of the results. In this version of the review, we did additional analyses comparing pregnancy risk in high-risk women with that in low-risk women, and comparing the risk between time intervals elapsed after intercourse among women using each of three different types of emergency contraceptives. Results indicated that the high-risk women were signicantly more likely to be pregnant than their low-risk counterparts (RR 2.67; 95% CI 2.11 to 3.39); women taking LNG within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse had a significantly lower risk of pregnancy than those taking the pills after 72 hours (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84); women taking the Yuzpe regimen within 24 hours were signicantly less likely to be pregnant than those taking the pills between 24 and 48 hours after unprotected intercourse (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.88); the latter group of women had a signicantly lower risk of pregnancy than those who adopted the method between 48 and 72 hours of intercourse (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89). It is not evident that the coitus-treatment interval affected the effectiveness of antiprogestin ECPs (mifepristone and UPA). Nevertheless, these results should be used with caution because they are not primary comparison analyses. Several studies compared regimens that combined anordrin, tamoxifen, danazol or misoprostol with mifepristone with regimens containing mifepristone alone. The combination regimens did not show any major advantage over the single regimens and thus merit no further research.
EC during their conception cycle and those who did not use any hormonal medications. A total of 11 infants were born following the use of ECPs (LNG, Yuzpe regimen, danazol and mifepristone) were identied in this review and all the infants are healthy.
IUD
The effectiveness of inserting an intrauterine device as an emergency contraceptive method has not been adequately investigated. This review only includes one small trial (Liu L 2002) that compared mifepristone with a Cu-IUD (Analysis 21.1). Only one pregnancy occurred in the mifepristone group in this trial. Although there were some barriers to using intrauterine devices as EC (Reuter 1999), data from non-randomised studies (Ban 2001; Fan H 2001; Han Y 2001; Wang C 2000; Wu S 2010; Zhang J 1999), which were all conducted in China, suggested that inserting Cu-IUDs for EC could be effective in preventing unintended pregnancy (3 pregnancies/3470 women, failure rate: 0.09%), and more than 80% women kept the Cu-IUD in place after EC as a long-term contraceptive method.
Counselling
Counselling and good service can reduce the risk of user failure (Cheng 1999b). Other aspects of EC intervention, such as raising awareness among the general public and healthcare delivery systems, are helpful to maximise the utilisation and increase the effectiveness of the interventions and should deserve more attention.
Ectopic pregnancy
Van Look 1993 reported that ectopic pregnancies accounted for about 10% of the pregnancies among EC users with oestrogen (such as Yuzpe). One explanation might be that post-coital administration of oestrogen usually prevents uterine pregnancy but not ectopic implantation. For this reason, a history of ectopic pregnancy was generally considered as a contraindication for postcoital oestrogen therapy (Van Look 1993). However, only ve cases were identied among 55,666 EC users in this review, indicating that ectopic pregnancy was a rare event among women using any particular EC regimen. This result is in agreement with the ndings of Cleland 2010 (a systematic review), which included 136 studies that investigated the effects of LNG and mifepristone as EC. They also found that the ECPs appeared to be effective in lowering the probability of ectopic pregnancy.
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS Implications for practice

EC should be offered to all women requesting this service. Where readily available, mifepristone should be the rst choice for hormonal EC. UPA seemed slightly more effective than LNG and can be an alternative where this medicine is accessible and affordable. Where UPA or mifepristone is not available, single-dose LNG 1.5 mg can be a choice. In places where UPA or mifepristone or LNG are not available, the Yuzpe regimen should be offered. Women receiving mifepristone should be informed that there may be a few days of delay in onset of menses. If using LNG or the Yuzpe regimen for EC, women should start the method as soon as possible to obtain the highest effectiveness (Piaggio 1999). CuIUD insertion can be offered to women presenting too late for ECPs, with no risk of sexually transmitted diseases and preferring long-term contraception.
20
Pregnancy outcome after the emergency contraceptive failure

LNG ECPs would not harm the development of a foetus if women take it by mistake early in pregnancy. Zhang and colleagues reported in a cohort study (Zhang L 2009) that the rates of miscarriage and malformations and sex ratio at birth were not statistically signicantly different between women who used LNG for
Implications for research

In order to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of UPA against LNG more data are needed. The effectiveness of LNG, UPA and mifepristone in relation to time since unprotected intercourse is not conrmed and more studies are needed. Moreover, effectiveness of intrauterine devices should be further evaluated. There is also a need to compare the effectiveness and safety of UPA with those of mifepristone in countries where it is applicable so as to inform clients and service providers. The trial protocols should clearly state when equivalence is sought and powered accordingly. Most of the trials included in this review did not have sufciently detailed reporting to enable satisfactory methodological quality assessment. Future trials should report the methods in sufcient detail to allow this assessment.
We are grateful to Drs A. Glasier, J. Guillebaud, P.C. Ho, S. Rowlands, A. Webb, Xiao Bilian, A. Templeton and H. von Hertzen who responded to our requests for information about their (ongoing) trials. We are particularly indebted to Mr. A. Peregoudov for providing additional data from the WHO 1998 trial. We thank Dr. R. Guidotti for his assistance with translation, Dr. C. van Oel for her work on the initial review and Dr. H. von Hertzen for her comments on earlier drafts. In the 2007 update of the review David Grimes, Laureen Lopez and Carol Manion made substantive contributions to the review by updating the literature searches, extraction of duplicates and re-appraisal of allocation concealment scores for all trials. We own great gratitude to Drs Gilda G.P. Piaggio, Enrique E. Ezcurra and Paul P.F.A. Van Look, who were coauthors of previous versions of this review and made a valuable contribution to the success of this review. In this updated review Ms. Carol Manion and Mr. Dongbing Chen did the literature searches, and Dr. Qiuju Chen duplicated the data extraction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
References to studies included in this review

Arowojolu 2002 {published data only} Arowojolu AO, Okewole LA, Adekunle AO. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception in Nigerians. Contraception 2002;66:26973. Ashok 2002 {published data only} Ashok PW, Stalder C, Wagaarachchi PT, Flett GM, Melvin L, Templeton A. A randomised study comparing a low dose of mifepristone and the Yuzpe regimen for emergency contraception. BJOG 2002;109:55360. Askalani 1987 {published data only} Askalani AH, Al-Senity AM, Al-Agizy HM, Salam HI, AlMasry GI, El-Sadek SM. Evaluation of copper T-200 as a post-coital contraceptive. Egyptian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1987;13:636. Bu 2006 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)} Bu GY, Yang MY, Cao XL. Clinical study on administration of low dose of mifepristone and levonorgestrel in urgent postcoital contraception. Progress in Modern Biomedicine 2006;6(2):534. Cao 1999 {published data only} Cao P, Li M, Xu J, Li Q. Different doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1999;15:2956. Chen 2001 {published data only} Chen G. Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University 2001;4: 224.
Chen 2002 {published data only} Chen R, Li Q, Zhang Y, Huang M, Chen Y, Zhong X, et al.A comparative study of low-dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Shi Yong Yi Xue Zha zi 2002;18: 10289. Chen 2002a {published data only} Chen H, Min X. Mifepristone in combination with MTX for emergency contraception. Strait Pharmaceutical Journal 2002;14:512. Chen 2008 {published data only} Chen Y. A comparative study of mifepristone and LNG for emergency contraception. China Foreign Medical Treatment 2008;34(34):60. Chen 2009 {published data only} Chen S, An HB, Wang D, Jin FB. Different dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. China Health Care Nutrition - Clinical Medicine Journal 2009;(2):289. Cheng 1999a {published data only} Cheng L, Tong CH, Xiao ZH. Low doses of mifepristone for emergency postcoital contraception. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;34:3358. Cheng 2009 {published data only} Cheng S. Clinical observation on YUTING for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Modern Drug Application 2009;3(8):1478. Creinin 2006 {published data only} Creinin MD, Schlaff W, Archer DF, Wan L, Frezieres R, Tomas M, et al.Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception. A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;108:108997.
21
Dada 2010 {published data only} Dada OA, Godfrey EM, Piaggio G, von Hertzen H, Nigerian Network for Reproductive Health Research and Training. A randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study to compare two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception in Nigeria. Contraception 2010;82(4):3738. Ding 2005 {published data only} Ding G. Different doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Practice Diagnosis and Treatment 2005;19:2267. Dong 2009 {published data only} Dong JF. Two different methods for emergency contraception. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 2009;9(1):589. Du 2002 {published data only} Du J. Low dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Henan Yi Yao Xin Xi 2002;10:145. Ellertson 2003 {published data only} Ellertson C, Webb A, Blanchard K, Bigrigg A, Haskell S, Shochet T, et al.Modifying the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;101:11607. Fan 2001 {published data only} Fan H, Cheng Y, Guo F, Wu S, Tan Y, Chen X, Wu X. Low dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Hubei Yu Fang Yi Xue Zha Zi 2001;23:52. Fang 2000 {published data only} Fang Q, Guo X, Pan J, Xiao J, Li Y. A comparative study on different doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Maternal and Child Health Care of China 2000;15:489. Farajkhoda 2009 {published data only} Farajkhoda T, Khoshbin A, Enjezab B, Bokaei M, Karimi Zarchi M. Assessment of two emergency contraceptive regimens in Iran: levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe. Niger Journal of Clinical Practice 2009;12(4):4502. Fu X 2000 {published data only} Fu X, Wang L, Jiang Q, Yang X. Anordrin and mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Qinghai Medical College 2000;21:434. Gan XH 2007 {published data only} Gan XH, Jiang H, Li LP. A clinical study of lowdose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Modern Medicine Health 2007;23(11):16345. Glasier 1992 {published and unpublished data} Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird D. Postcoital contraception with mifepristone (letter). Lancet 1991;337:14145. Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird DT. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;327:10414. Glasier 2010 {published data only} Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, Logan SJ, Casale W, Van Horn J, et al.Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for
emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet 2010;375(9714):55562. Hamoda 2004 {published data only} Hamoda H, Ashok PW, Stalder C, Flett GMM, Kennedy E, Templeton A. A randomized trial of mifepristone (10 mg) and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104:130713. Han 1995 {published data only} Han X, Weng L, Zhang L, Zeng T, Xiao B. Clinical trial of mifepristone and anordrin for emergency contraception. Journal of Reproductive Medicine (China) 1995;4:20611. Han 1996 {published data only} Han X, Weng L, Xiao B. Emergency contraception with mifepristone and anordrin. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;31:5269. Han 1999a {published data only} Han X, Jin X, Weng L. A comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1999;15: 2946. Han L 2001 {published data only} Han L, Ma Y, Li H. Low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Fudan University Journal of Medical Sciences 2001;28:1767. He CH 2002 {published data only} He CH, Gui YL, Yang J, Wang BS, Zheng E, Gao ES, et al.A randomized comparative study on mifepristone alone and in combination with tamoxifen for emergency contraception. Contraception 2002;66:2214. Ho 1993 {published and unpublished data} Ho PC, Kwan MSW. A prospective randomized comparison of levonorgestrel with the Yuzpe regimen in post-coital contraception. Human Reproduction 1993;8: 38992. Hu X 2003 {published data only} Hu X, Lu C. A comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Sichuan Medical Journal 2003;24:F004. Lai Z 2004 {published data only} Lai Z, Wang J, Zhou Z, Lu H, Song X, Sun J. A comparative study of low-dose Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Maternal and Child Health Care of China 2004;19:368. Lan XL 2006 {published data only} Lan XL, Chen LP, Ye QH. Clinical study of low-dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Clinical Medicine 2006;26(11):689. Li 2000 {published data only} Li Q, Chen R, Zhang Y, Huang M, Chen RX, Zhong X. A comparative study of mifepristone 50 mg and 25 mg for emergency contraception. Guangdon Medical Journal 2000; 22:8845.
22
Li A 2000 {published data only} Li A, Zhang Y. Low dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Guangxi Medical University 2000; 17:857. Liang 2001 {published data only} Liang JZ, Zhou MR. A randomised comparative study on mifepristone and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Heilongjiang Medical Journal 2001;25:594. Liao 2003 {published data only} Liao AH, Chang CF, Zhu JW. Randomised controlled prospective studies of mifepristone in small doses and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2003;19:257. Li H 2000 {published data only} Li H, Chang JP, Li J. A study of low-dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Heilongjiang Medical Journal 2000;23:90. Li J 2005 {published data only} Li J. A comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Anthology of Medicine 2005; 24:754. Lin 2000 {published data only} Lin N, Cheng W, Yang Y, Shao L. A comparative study of mifepristone and LNG for emergency contraception. Tianjing Medical Journal 2000;28:6013. Liu 2000 {published data only} Liu JL, Liu LH, Li KZ, Liu HL. Comparative study of the efcacy of low-dose mifepristone and levonorgestrel on the emergency contraception. Practical Preventive Medicine 2000;7:1267. Liu L 2001 {published data only} Liu L, Wang Z, Li L. Mifepristone and anordrin for emergency contraception. Zhong Guo Yiu Sheng Yu Yi Chuan Zha Zi 2001;9:10811. Liu L 2002 {published data only} Liu L, Chen A. A comparative study of mifepristone with Cu-IUD for emergency contraception. Journal of Changzhi Medical College 2002;61:1989. Liu RQ 2009 {published data only} Liu RQ. A comparative study of mifepristone and LNG for emergency contraception. China Pharmaceuticals 2009;18 (19):689. Li W 2002 {published data only} Li W. A comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Guizhou Journal of Medicine 2002;26:457. Lou C 2002 {published data only} Lou C. Low-dose Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Xian Dai Shi Yong YI Xue 2002;14:485. Lou X 2005 {published data only} Lou X, Ma L, Yang Y. Mifepristone and C53 contraceptive in postcoital contraception. Journal of Chinese Modern Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2005;2:4056.
Ngai 2005 {published data only} Ngai SW, Fan S, Li S, Cheng L, Ding J, Jing X, et al.A randomized trial to compare 24 h versus 12 h double dose regimen of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Human Reproduction 2005;20:30711. Pei 2001 {published data only} Pei JH, Wang ZX. A randomised comparative study of mifepristone in small doses and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Haerbin Medicine 2001;21:323. Qi 2000b {published data only} Qi Y, Zhang J, Cao Y, Zhang Z. A comparative clinical trial on two low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Maternal and Child Health Care of China 2000;15:7014. Qian 1999 {published data only} Qian L. Three doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7: 3223. Qi M 2003 {published data only} Qi M, Wang Y, Yan L. A comparative study of lowdose mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception - 288 cases report. Journal of Qinghai Medical College 2003;24:2556. Rowlands 1983 {published data only} Rowlands S, Guillebaud J, Bounds W, Booth M. Side effects of danazol compared with an ethinyloestradiol/ norgestrel combination when used for postcoital contraception. Contraception 1983;27:3949. Rowlands S, Kubba AA, Guillebaud J, Bounds W. A possible mechanism of action of danazol and an ethinylestradiol/ norgestrel combination used as postcoital contraceptive agents. Contraception 1986;33:53945. Sang 1999 {published data only} Sang GW, Shao Q, Zhang J, Zhang M, Chen S, Song S, et al.A randomized multicentre clinical trial on different doses of mifepristone alone and in combination with anordrin as emergency contraception [Mifepristone in combination with anordrin for emergency contraception: a randomized multicentre study]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;34:3314. Shao XY 2010 {published data only} Shao XY. Clinical observation on mifepristone for emergency contraception. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 2010; 10(3):55. Sheng A 2002 {published data only} Sheng A. Clinical observation of the efcacy of mifepristone and levonorgestrel on the emergency contraception. Academic Journal of Jiangsu University (Medicine) 2002;12: 2469. Sheng SY 2008 {published data only} Sheng SY. A clinical study of LNG-COC for emergency contraception. Asia-Pacic Traditional Medicine 2008;4(9): 934.
23
Su 2001 {published data only} Su W, Chui JY, Liu P. A comparative study of IUCD with mifepristone and with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Journal of Baotou Medicine 2001;25:24. Sun 2000 {published data only} Sun Y, Wang X. A clinical comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2000;8:1723. Sun MX 2007 {published data only} Sun MX. A clinical comparative study of LNG vs. LNGCOC for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2007;6:3667. Sun P 2003 {published data only} Sun P. Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Chinese Practice Medicine 2003;5:92. Tan 1999 {published data only} Tan K, Mai T, He P, Lin H, Li S. Low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7:4701. Tan L 2003 {published data only} Tan L, Zheng G, Li J. Mifepristone for emergency contraception - 150 cases report. Wei Sheng Zhi Yie Jiao Yu 2003;21:1389. Van Santen 1985a {published data only} Van Santen MR, Haspels AA. A comparison of high-dose estrogens versus low-dose ethinylestradiol and norgestrel combination in postcoital interception: a study in 493 women. Fertility and Sterility 1985;43:20613. Van Santen MR, Haspels AA. Comparative randomized double-blind study of high dosage ethinylestradiol versus ethinylestradiol and norgestrel combination in postcoital contraception. Acta Endocrinologica 1982;99(suppl 246):2. Von Hertzen 2002 {published data only} von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Ding J, Chen J, Song S, Bartfai G, et al.Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Lancet 2002; 360:180310. Wang 1999 {published data only} Wang Z, Liu L, Liu Q, Zhang H. A clinical comparative study of mifepristone with anordrin for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7: 3201. Wang C 2000 {published data only} Wang C, Tian M, Chang Y, Shao M. A clinical comparative observation among copper IUD, lower dose mifepristone and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Journal of Chinese Physician 2000;2:2713. Wang J 2006 {published data only} Wang J. A comparative study on different doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal Huaihai Medicine 2006;24:1920. Wang L 2004 {published data only} Wang L, Lv Y, Guan D, Zhang H, Yao L. 12.5mg Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese General Practice 2004;7:14778.
Wang Q 2000 {published data only} Wang Q, Li A. A comparative study of levonorgestrel with low dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Northwestern Pharmaceutical Journal 2000;15:72. Wang SZ 2001 {published data only} Wang SZ, Huang ZK, Li S. Clinical trial of mifepristone in different dose for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2001;17:5346. Wang Y 2003 {published data only} Wang Y, Liu H. A comparative study on low doses of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2003;8: 5056. Wang ZW 2008 {published data only} Wang ZW, Qu HW. Two different doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Misdiagnosis 2008;8(20):481920. Webb 1992 {published data only} Webb AM. Alternative treatments in oral postcoital contraception: interim results. Advances in Contraception 1991;7:2719. Webb AMC, Russell J, Elstein M. Comparison of Yuzpe regimen, danazol, and mifepristone (RU486) in oral postcoital contraception. BMJ 1992;305:92731. Wei H 2011 {published data only} Wei H, He CB, Liu J. Low dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese and Foreign Women Health 2011;19 (3):70. Wei RH 2002 {published data only} Wei RH. Low dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception - 200 cases report. Shanghai Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Zha Zi 2002;23:3942. WHO 1998 {published data only} WHO Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet 1998;352:42833. WHO 1999 {published data only} WHO Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:697702. Wu 1999a {published data only} Wu S, Wang C, Wang Y, Cheng W, Zuo S, Li H, et al.A randomized, double-blind, multicentre study on comparing levonorgestrel and mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;34:32730. Wu 2002 {published data only} Wu XZ, Sao JY, Chen CQ, Yan Y, Fa YY, Liu JH, et al.A comparative study on methods for emergency contraception. Reproduction & Contraception (China) 2002;22:1525. Wu 2010 {published data only} Wu S, Dong J, Cong J, Wang CP, Von Hertzen H, Godfrey EM. Gestrinone compared with mifepristone for emergency
24
contraception: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010;115(4):7404. Xiao 2002 {published data only} Xiao BL, von Hertzen H, Piaggio G. A randomized doubleblind comparison of two single doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Human Reproduction 2002;17: 30849. Xie 1998 {published data only} Xie X, Liu Y, Lin X. A clinical study on 600 cases of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Reproduction & Contraception (China) 1998;18:2246. Xie HH 2010 {published data only} Xie HH, Shang XM, Dai WY. Analysis of emergency contraception use mifepristone by different doses. Guide of China Medicine 2010;8(14):345. Xu 2000 {published data only} Xu L, Wang Z. A comparative study on low dose mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2000;8: 41920. Xu Z 2000 {published data only} Xu Z. A comparative study of Mifepristone, anordrin and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Journal of Yichun Medical College 2000;12:2489. Yang 2001 {published data only} Yang LJ. A comparative study on mifepristone, anordrin and danazol for emergency contraception. Guangzhou Medical Journal 2001;32:123. Yang F 2003 {published data only} Yang F. A comparative study on two low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Clinical Research 2003;20:6301. Zeng MY 2008 {published data only} Zeng MY, Zhu LF, Huang Y. A comparative study of low-dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. International Medicine Health Guidance News 2008;14(14): 6870. Zeng XY 2007 {published data only} Zeng XY. A clinical study of Mifepristone in combination with MTX for emergency contraception. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine 2007;7 (3):623. Zhang JQ 2000 {published data only} Zhang JQ. Emergency contraception in high-land. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2000;8:5524. Zhang L 2005 {published data only} Zhang L, Lai L, Deng X. Single and small dose of Mifepristone for emergency contraception of curative effect observe. Journal of Gannan Medical College 2005;25: 32830. Zhang X 1999a {published data only} Zhang X, Gao G, Shi J, Qu C, Leng Y. A clinical study on low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7:1756.
Zhang Y 1998 {published data only} Zhang Y, Qiao G, Zhu P, Zhang S, Zhang J, Zhu N. Clinical observation of three lower doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1998;6:3435. Zhang Y 2002 {published data only} Zhang Y, Wen L, Li S, Wang Y. Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Henan YI Yao Xin XI 2002;10:201. Zhang YM 2002 {published data only} Zhang Y, Zhang W, Wang L. Low- dose of Mifepristone and anordrin for emergency contraception: observation of 116 cases. Journal of Qiqihar Medical College 2002;23:415. Zhao J 2003 {published data only} Zhao J, Liu R, Li H, Zhang Y. Different doses of Mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Shandong University (Health Sciences) 2003;41:468. Zheng A 2005 {published data only} Zheng A. Low-dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Youjiang Medical Journal 2005;33:3756. Zuo 1999 {published data only} Zuo SH, Wu J, Liu L, Liu J, Gao Y. A clinical trial on two low doses of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Reproduction & Contraception (China) 1999;19:3526.
References to studies excluded from this review

Ashok 2001 {published data only} Ashok PW, Wagaarachchi PT, Flett GM, Templeton A. Mifepristone as a late post-coital contraceptive. Human Reproduction 2001;16:725. Ashok 2004 {published data only} Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GMM, Templeton A. Mifepristone versus the Yuzpe regimen (PC4) for emergency contraception. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2004;87:18893. Ban 2001 {published data only} Ban X, Xiao Y, Fan H, Liu G, Liu Q, Yu L. A comparative clinical study on Tcu380A and Cu-IUD for emergency contraception. Maternal & Child Health Care of China 2001;16:498501. Benagiano G 2010 {published data only} Benagiano G, von Hertzen H. Towards more effective emergency contraception?. Lancet 2010;375(9714): 52728. Byamugisha 2010 {published data only} Byamugisha JK, Mirembe FM, Faxelid E, Tumwesigye NM, Gemzell-Danielsson K. A randomized clinical trial of two emergency contraceptive pill regimens in a Ugandan population. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica 2010;89:6706. Creinin 1997 {published data only} Creinin MD. A reassessment of efcacy of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Human Reproduction 1997;12:4968. DSouza 2003 {published data only} DSouza RE, Masters T, Bounds W, Guillebaud J. Randomised controlled trial assessing the acceptability of
25
GyneFix versus Gyne-T389S for emergency contraception. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 2003;29:239. Dixon 1980 {published data only} Dixon GW. Ethinylestradiol and conjugated estrogens as postcoital contraceptives. JAMA 1980;244:13369. Dong 2007 {published data only} Dong SZ, Wu SH. comparing mifepristone, levonorgestrel and the copper IUD for emergency contraception: a report of 268 cases. Journal of Chinese Modern Gynecology and Obstetrics 4;2:1279. Ellertson 2003a {published data only} Ellertson C, Evans M, Ferden S, Leadbetter C, Spears A, Johnestone K, et al.Extending the time limit for starting the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception to 120 hours. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101:116871. Espinos 1999 {published data only} Espinos JJ, Senosiain R, Vanrell C, Armengol J, Cuberas N, Calaf J. Safety and effectiveness of hormonal postcoital contraception: a prospective study. European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 1999;4:2733. Fan 1998 {published data only} Fan Ai, Wang Y, Wang Z. Clinical study on 518 cases of emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1998;6:4089. Fan H 2001 {published data only} Fan H, Zhou L. Emergency contraception with Multiload Cu 375 SL IUD: a multicentre clinical trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine (China) 2001;10:707. Fasoli 1989 {published data only} Fasoli M, Parazzini F, Cecchetti G, Vecchia CL. Postcoital contraception: an overview of published studies. Contraception 1989;39:45969. Fine 2010 {published data only} Fine P, Mathe H, Ginde S, Cullins V, Morfesis J, Gainer E. Ulipristal acetate taken 48-120 hours after intercourse for emergency contraception. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010; 115(2):24763. Gan 1999 {published data only} Gan SH, Chang M, Hu S, Zhang P, Chang M, Xu X. A clinical study on mifepristone 10mg for emergency contraception. Reproduction and Contraception (China) 1999;19:3113. Gan SX 2001 {published data only} Gan SX, Li SS, Lu Y. Comparative study of the efcacy of mifepristone and levonorgestrel on the emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2001;9: 17881. Gao ER 2001 {published data only} Gao ER, Zhao Sh, Lou CH. Study on the acceptability of emergency contraception among those who underwent induced abortion. Reproduction & Contraception (China) 2001;21:1049.
Gottardi 1979 {published data only} Gottardi G, Marzi MM, Pozzi S. Postcoital estrogen or IUD? [Oestrogne postcoital ou DIU?]. IPPF Europe Bulletin dInformation Rgional 1979;8:78. Gottardi 1986 {published data only} Gottardi G, Spreaco A, de Orchi L. The postcoital IUD as an effective continuing contraceptive method. Contraception 1986;34:54958. Guillebaud 1983 {published data only} Guillebaud J, Kubba A, Rowlands S, White J, Elder EG. Postcoital contraception with danazol, compared with an ethinyloestradiol-norgestrel combination or insertion of a intrauterine device. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1983;suppl 1:s648. Gu XY 2002 {published data only} Gu XY, Yie TF. Clinical study of the effect of Multiload 375 SL and levo-norgestrel on emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2002;10:7402. Halpern V 2010 {published data only} Halpern V, Raymond EG, Lopez LM. Repeated use of pre- and postcoital hormonal contraception for prevention of pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. http://apps.who.int/rhl/fertility/contraception/cd007595/en/ index.html 2010, Issue 1. No.: CD007595. DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD007595.pub2. Han 1999b {published data only} Han X, Wong L, Sun J. A clinical study on mifepristone alone and in combination with anodrin for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7: 4114. Han Y 2001 {published data only} Han Y. The clinical observation of GyneFix IUD for emergency contraception. Journal of Practical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;17:1712. Haspels 1976 {published data only} Haspels AA. Interception: post-coital estrogens in 3016 women. Contraception 1976;14:37581. He 1991 {published data only} He C, Shi Y, Xu J, Van Look PFA. A multicenter clinical study on two types of levonorgestrel tablets administered for postcoital contraception. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1991;36:438. Hoffman 1983 {published data only} Hoffman KOK. Postcoital contraception: experiences with ethinyl oestradiol/norgestrel and levonorgestrel only. In: Harrison RF, Bonnar J, Thompson W editor(s). Fertility and Sterility. Dublin: IFFS Fertility and Sterility, 1983: 3116. Jiang 2000 {published data only} Jiang L, Duan Y, Sun Y. A comparative study of mifepristone with levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2000;8:4634.
26
Jiang 2002 {published data only} Jiang DX, Wu ER. Effects of gestrinone (R2323) on emergency contraception: a clinical observation of 120 cases. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2002;11:32630. Jin 2005 {published data only} Jin J, Weisberg E, Fraser IS. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised controlled trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005;45: 48994. Kesser 1973 {published data only} Kesser E, Larranaga A, Parada J. Postcoital contraception with d-norgestrel. Contraception 1973;7:36779. Li F 2002 {published data only} Li F, Chen YX, Tang JH. Emergency contraception by lowdose mifepristone: observation of 150 cases. Journal of First Military Medical University 2002;22:466. Li F 2005 {published data only} Li F, Qian X, Wu W. A comparative study of mifepristone with Cu-IUD for emergency contraception. Journal of Practice Medicine 2005;21:23134. Lippes 1976 {published data only} Lippes J, Malik T, Tatum HJ. The postcoital copper-T. Advances in Planned Parenthood 1976;11:249. Lippes 1979 {published data only} Lippes J, Tatum HJ, Maulid D, et al.A continuation of the study of post-coital IUDs. Family Planning Perspectives 1979;11:1958. Liu Y 2002 {published data only} Liu Y, Chen X. A comparative study of mifepristone with Cu-IUD for emergency contraception. Journal of Qiqihar Medical College 2002;23:8901. Li XY 2001 {published data only} Li XY, Hu LY. A study of low-dose mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2001;17:61920. Luerti 1986 {published data only} Luerti M, Tonta A, Feria P, Molla R, Santini F. Post-coital contraception by estrogen-progestagen combination or IUD insertion. Contraception 1986;33:618. Ma 2001 {published data only} Ma J. A study on 110 cases of emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2001; 17:189. Mo 2004 {published data only} Mo Y. A clinical observation on different dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Hainan Yi Xue 2004;15:423. Mor 2005 {published data only} Mor E, Saadat P, Kives S, White E, Reid RL, Paulson RJ, et al.Comparison of vaginal and oral administration of emergency contraception. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84: 405.
Piaggio 2003 {published data only} Piaggio G, Heng Z, von Hertzen H, Bilian X, Linan C. Combined estimates of effectiveness of mifepristone 10mg in emergency contraception. Contraception 2003;68: 43946. Piaggio 2003a {published data only} Piaggio G, von Hertzen H, Zhao H, Xiao BL, Cheng L. Meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing different doses of mifepristone in emergency contraception. Contraception 2003;68:44752. Qi 2000 {published data only} Qi Y, Zhang J, Cao Y, Yan W, Zhang Z. A clinical study on mifepristone at low dose for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2000;8:3057. Qiao 2002 {published data only} Qiao Y. A clinical trial of mifepristone in combination with MTX for emergency contraception. Journal of Jining Medical College 2002;25:44. Qin 2000 {published data only} Qin C. A clinical study on 137 cases of emergency contraception with mifepristone. Zhejiang Journal of Clinical Medicine 2000;2:3023. Raymond 2000 {published data only} Raymond EG, Creinin MD, Barnhart KT, Lovvorn AE, Rountree RE, Trussell J. Meclizine for prevention of nausea associated with use of emergency contraceptive pills: a randomized trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;95:2717. Raymond 2006 {published data only} Raymond EG, Stewart F, Weaver M, Monteith C, Van Der Pol B. Impact of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;108(5):1098106. Roye 2001 {published data only} Roye CF. Routine provision of emergency contraception to teens and subsequent condom use: a preliminary study. Journal of Adolescent Health 2001;28:1656. Scarduelli 1998 {published data only} Scarduelli C, Anselmino M, Caccamo A, Sezzi E, Lombroso Finzi GC. Emergency contraception: a new evaluation of effectiveness. P-159. Abstracts of the 14th Annual Meeting of the ESHRF, Gteborg. 1998:2089. Schilling 1979 {published data only} Schilling LH. An alternative to the use of high dose estrogen for postcoital contraception. Journal of American College of Health Association 1979;27:2479. Schreiber 2010 {published data only} Schreiber CA, Ratcliffe SJ, Barnhart KT. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of advanced supply of emergency contraception in postpartum teens: a feasibility study. Contraception 2010;81:43540. Shen HX 2010 {published data only} Shen HX. A observational study of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of China Traditional Chinese Medicine Information 2010;2(28):163.
27
Shochet 2004 {published data only} Shochet T, Blanchard K, King H, Henchcliffe B, Hunt J. Side effects of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception and modications. Contraception 2004;69: 3017. Song ZH 2007 {published data only} Song ZH, Wang Y, Chen P, Wang D, Lu WH. A clinical study of mifepristone and the copper IUD for emergency contraception. Chinese Medicine of Factory and Mine 2007; 20(6):6301. Sun 2005 {published data only} Sun Y, Che Y, Ding Y, Zhou W, Han Y, Fang K, et al.Systematic review of emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 2005;4:21722. Tian Q 2000 {published data only} Tian Q. A comparative study of mifepristone with Cu-IUD for emergency contraception. Journal of Henan Medical College for Staff and Workers 2000;12:51. Turok 2010 {published data only} Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Handley E, Simonsen SE, Sok C, Murphy P. A pilot study of the copper T380A IUD and oral levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Contraception 2010;82:5205. Van Santen 1983 {published data only} Van Santen MR, Haspels AA. Postcoital contraception with an IUD [Contraccezione con D.I.U. postcoitale]. Contraccezione, Fertilita, Sessualita 1983;10:54957. Van Santen 1985b {published data only} Van Santen MR, Haspels AA. Interception II: postcoital low-dose estrogens and norgestrel combination in 633 women. Contraception 1985;31:27593. Virjo 1999 {published data only} Virjo I, Kirkkola AL, Isokoski M, Mattila K. Use and knowledge of hormonal emergency contraception. Advances in Contraception 1999;15:8594. Wang CP 2006 {published data only} Wang CP, Liu Y, Chang YF, Shao WQ. A comparing study of the copper intrauterine device and low dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2006;15(4):2713. Wei R 2002 {published data only} Wei R. Low-dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception: observation of 309 cases. Jiangxi Medical Journal 2002;37:1024. Wu 1999b {published data only} Wu C, Zhang Y. An extend study on using single dose of mifepriston 25mg for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7:35860. Wu 2005 {published data only} Wu S, Zhou Y. Clinical use of emergency contraception pill. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2005; 21:157.
Xiao 2004 {published data only} Xiao BL. Clinical study of emergency contraception with low-dose mifepristone. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;39:358. Yang 2002 {published data only} Yang Y, Liang X, Liu X. Low-dose of mifepristone for emergency contraception: observation of 106 cases. Heilongjiang Medical Journal 2002;26:283. Yu 2001 {published data only} Yu MD. A primary discussion of the drugs for emergency contraception. Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal 2001;5:956. Yuzpe 1974 {published data only} Yuzpe AA, Thurlow HJ, Ramzy I, Leushon JL. Postcoital contraception - a pilot study. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1974;1:538. Yuzpe 1977 {published data only} Yuzpe AA, Lancee WJ. Ethinylestradiol and dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive. Fertility and Sterility 1977;28: 9326. Yuzpe 1982 {published data only} Yuzpe AA, Percival Smith R, Rademaker AW. A multicentre clinical investigation employing ethinylestradiol combined with dl-norgestrel as a postcoital contraceptive agent. Fertility and Sterility 1982;37:50813. Zhang J 1999 {published data only} Zhang J, Jing X, Wong L. Cu-IUD versus mifepristone for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;34:56970. Zhang M 1999 {published data only} Zhang M, Yang H, Wang Z, Liang X, Wang Y. A study on mifepristone alone and in combination with anordrin for emergency contraception. Zhejiang Journal of Practical Medicine 1999;4:12. Zhang X 1999 {published data only} Zhang X, Du M, Ying Y. A study on mifepristone alone and in combination with anordrin for emergency contraception. Reproduction and Contraception (China) 1999;19:1638. Zhang X 1999b {published data only} Zhang X, Leng Y, Shi J, Gao G, Xu Y, Sun H. A study on LNG for emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Family Planning 1999;7:3756. Zhao 2006 {published data only} Zho H, Han L. Analysis of the reason for failure of emergency contraception. Journal of China-Japan Friendship Hospital 2006;20:20710. Zhao H 2001 {published data only} Zhao H, Tang JR, Wu MH, Cheng H. A comparative study of mifepristone with IUCD for emergency contraception. Journal of Capital University of Medical Sciences 2001;22: 2734. Zhu 1999 {published data only} Zhu P, Chai J, Wang N, Li G. An initial observation of mifepristone combined with MTX for the use of emergency
28
contraception. Guangdong Journal of Medicine 1999;20: 112. Zhu YH 2007 {published data only} Zhu YH, Ou YL. Clinical observational study of three methods for emergency contraception. Journal of Medical Theory and Practice 2007;20(2):2002. Zuliani 1990 {published data only} Colombo UF, Zuliani G, Benzi G, Bregozzo T, Viezzoli T. [Contraccezione post coitale ormonale con danazolo: ristati di due differenti schemi posologici]. Pediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology. Paper presented at the III European Symposium on Pediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology; 1987 Oct 7-10; Florence. Florence, Italy: CIC Edizioni Internazionali, 1987:20611. Zuliani G, Colombo UF, Luerti M, Casolati E, Viezzoli T. Postcoital contraception with an ethinylestradiol-norgestrel combination and two different danazol regimens. In: Genazzani AR, Petraglia F, Volpe A, Facchinetti F editor(s). Recent Research on Gynecological Endocrinology. New Jersey: Parthenon Publishing, 1988. Zuliani G, Colombo UF, Molla R. Hormonal postcoital contraception with an ethinylestradiol-norgestrel combination and two danazol regimens. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1990;37: 25360. Zuliani G, Colombo UF, Molla R, Bregozzo T, Mojana G. [Confronto tra danazolo e etinilestradiolonorgestrel utilzzati come intercettori postcoitali ormonali: studio clinico randomizzato]. Congresso Internazionale di Endocrinologia Ginecologica. Madonna di Campiglio, 1986 16-22 Mar, Bologna. 1986:3414.
Higgins 2011 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. ICEC 2012a International Consortium for Emergency Contraception (ICEC). Knowledge and ever used of emergency contraception in Latin America. http://www.cecinfo.org/UserFiles/File/DHS/Emergency%20Contraception%20in%20Latin%20America.pdf (accessed 30 April 2012). ICEC 2012b ICEC. Knowledge and ever used of emergency contraception in Africa. http://www.cecinfo.org/UserFiles/File/DHS/ Emergency%20Contraception%20in%20Africa.pdf (accessed 30 April 2012). ICEC 2012c ICEC. Knowledge and ever used of emergency contraception in Europe and West Asia.. http: //www.cecinfo.org/UserFiles/File/DHS/Emergency%20Contraception%20in%20Europe%20and%20West%20Asia.pdf (accessed 30 April 2012). INEI 2011 Instituto Nacional De Estadstica E Informtica (INEI) and ICF Macro. Peru: DHS, 2010 - Final report continuous (2010). ORC Macro / Measure DHS+, May 2011. Piaggio 1999 Piaggo P, Von Hertzen H, Grimes DA, Van Look PFA. Timing of emergency contraception with levonorgestrel or the Yuzpe regimen. Lancet 1999;353:721. Reuter 1999 Reuter S. Barriers to the use of IUDs as emergency contraception. British Journal of Family Planning 1999;25: 638. Sedgh 2012 Sedgh G, Singh S, Shah IH, Ahman E, Henshaw SK, Bankole A. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet 2012;379(9816): 62532. STATA 2001 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2001. Thompson 2002 Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:155973. Trussell 2012 Trussell J, Raymond EG. Emergency contraception: a last chance to prevent unwanted pregnancy. April 2012. http:// ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf (accessed 3 June 2012). Van Look 1993 Van Look PFA, von Hertzen H. Emergency contraception. British Medical Bulletin 1993;49:15870.
29
Additional references
Brache 2010 Brache V, Cochon L, Jesam C, Maldonado R, Salvatierra AM, Levy DP, et al.Immediate pre-ovulatory administration of 30 mg ulipristal acetate signicantly delays follicular rupture. Human Reproduction 2010;25(9):225663. Cheng 1999b Cheng L. Current situation and development of emergency contraception. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;34:3256. Cleland 2010 Cleland K, Raymond E, Trussell J, Cheng L, Zhu H. Ectopic pregnancy and emergency contraceptive pills. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010;115:12636. Glasier 1997 Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337:105864. Grimes 1997 Grimes DA. Emergency contraception: expanding opportunities for primary prevention. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337:10789.
Webb 1995 Webb A. Emergency contraception. Fertility Control Reviews 1995;4:37. WHO 1990 World Health Organization. The TCu380A, TCu220C, Multiload 250 and Nova T IUDs at 3, 5 and 7 years of use. Contraception 1990;42:14158. Wu S 2010 Wu S, Godfrey E, Wojdyla D, Dong J, Cong J, Wang C,
et al.Copper T380A intrauterine device for emergency contraception: a prospective, multicentre, cohort clinical trial. BJOG 2010;117(10):120510. Zhang L 2009 Zhang L, Chen J, Wang Y, Ren F, Yu W, Cheng L. Pregnancy outcome after levonorgestrel-only emergency contraception failure: a prospective cohort study. Human Reproduction 2009;1:17. Indicates the major publication for the study
30
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Arowojolu 2002 Methods Randomised double-blind, multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally Similar looking placebos were used 1160 healthy women recruited into the study from family planning clinics, University College Hospital, Ibadan, and Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria, Ikolaba, Ibadan Included women with regular menstrual periods (21-35 days), who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were not available for follow-up, were pregnant, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those had contraindications to the use of hormonal contraceptive pills. 1118 into efcacy analysis, 1062 into safety analysis LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally (split dose) vs LNG 1.5 mg (single dose) Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: split-dose 15/560 and single dose 27/600 Observed pregnancy/total number of women: split-dose LNG 7/545, single-dose LNG 4/573 Of the failed cases 3 women in split-dose group and 1 in single-dose group continued with their pregnancies and delivered live health babies, while the others were lost to follow-up
Participants
Interventions Outcomes Notes
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias) Authors judgement Low risk Support for judgement A - Adequate
Ashok 2002 Methods Women randomised into 2 groups by opening sequentially numbered, sealed opaque envelopes that were prepared using random number tables The study was not blinded and the clinician and patient were both aware of the treatment allocat ion 1000 women attending a hospital in Aberdeen, UK. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 100 mg orally vs Yuzpe regimen ( 2 tablets each with ethinyl oestradiol 50 g and LNG 0.25 mg) orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side effects, change in menstrual pattern and patient acceptability
31
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Ashok 2002
(Continued)
Notes
Lost to follow-up: Mife 13/500; Yuzpe 29/500 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 3/39/487; Yuzpe 17/39/471
Askalani 1987 Methods Randomly allocated women to 2 groups. The numbers enrolled in 2 groups we re 2:1 between treatment and control. Although 2:1 randomisation wa s not specically mentioned, the trial w as included because it is explicitly stated that the allocation was random No details of allocation concealment or other methodological aspects are mentioned 300 women attending the family planning clinic of the Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt Included women who had unprotected intercourse around the time of ovulation and attended the clinic within 4 days of unprotected intercourse Cu-T 200 vs control (no treatment) Pregnancy rates No loss to follow-up or exclusions were reported
Participants
Interventions Outcomes Notes Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Authors judgement High risk
Support for judgement C - Inadequate
Bu 2006 Methods Participants Women were randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomi sation not reported 100 women attending Fulaerji District Hospital, Qiqihaer, Helongjiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg single- dose orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern
Interventions Outcomes
32
Bu 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg: 1/50; LNG: 1/50 Side effects: Mife: nausea 2/50; dizziness 1/50; low abdominal pain 3/50; diarrhoea 2/50 LNG: nausea 3/50; dizziness 1/50; low abdominal pain 4/50; diarrhoea 1/50 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 4/49; LNG 9/49 Delay: Mife 9/49; LNG 5/49 Spotting: Mife 1/49; LNG 2/49
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias) Authors judgement High risk Support for judgement C - Inadequate
Cao 1999 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 4 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 543 women (aged 18-47 years old) attending the outpatient clinic of the No. 477 Military Hospital, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife (single dose) 100 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern No mention of post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 100 mg 0/ 13/120; Mife 50 mg 0/16/147; Mife 25 mg 2/14/136; Mife 10 mg 8/14/140
Chen 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 88 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Guangxi, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs a nordrin 7.5 mg 2-dose 12 h apart orally
33
Interventions
Chen 2001
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 0/4/47; anordrin 2/4/41
Chen 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomi sation not reported 312 women attending the clinic in 4 family planning centres, Guangdong, China Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies and changes in menstrual pattern 10 women excluded after recruitment, 2 loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 50 mg 2/154; Mife 25 mg 4/148
Chen 2002a Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 100 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Fujian, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg+ MTX 5 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
34
Chen 2002a
(Continued)
Notes
No mention of post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up -Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife + MTX 0/ 5/50; Mife 1/5/50
Chen 2008 Methods Participants Women were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Method of randomis ation not reported 273 women attending in a family planning clinic, Tongxiang, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife: 2/129; LNG: 3/136 Side effects: Mife: total side effect 14/129; LNG: total side effect 53/136 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 8/118; LNG 7/125 Delay: Mife 13/118; LNG 1/125
Chen 2009 Methods Participants Women were randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomisation not reported 62 women attending in a family planning clinic, Liaoning province. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic M ife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose
Interventions
35
Chen 2009
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg: 1/30; Mife 10 mg: 1/32 Side effects: Mife 25 mg: nausea and vomiting 4/30; diarrhoea 4/30; dizziness 2/30; headache 4/30; fatigue 5/30 Mife 10 mg: nausea and vomiting 2/32; diarrhoea 2/32; dizziness 1/32; headache 3/32; fatigue 4/32 Changes in menstrual pattern: Mife 25 mg: delay: 29/29; spotting: 1/29 Mife 10 mg: delay: 30/31; spotting: 1/31
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias) Authors judgement Unclear risk Support for judgement C - Inadequate
Cheng 1999a Methods Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Random number table used to generate the allocation sequence There were no concealment of allocation and no blinding Side eff ects were assessed by women on a chart 639 women in Shanghai, China, attending 17 district MCH hospitals Included if they had regular menstrual periods (21-35 days), aged 18-45 years, with a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Excluded women on oral contraceptives, with contraindications to Mife and those that were considered difcult to follow- up Mife single dose (Chinese domestic product): 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects, changes in menstrual pattern Randomised 639 of the 657 screened cases No mention of post-randomisation exclusion Loss to follow-up: 4.38%; Mife 50 mg 9/214; Mife 25 mg 9/214; Mife 10 mg 10/ 211 -Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 50 mg: 2/ 15/205; Mife 25 mg: 1/15/205; Mife 10 mg: 5/16/201
Participants
Risk of bias Bias Authors judgement Support for judgement
36
Cheng 1999a
(Continued)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
High risk
C - Inadequate
Cheng 2009 Methods Participants Women were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Method of randomisation not reported 166 women attending in an o bs/ gyn clinic, Huadu D istrict H ospital, Guangzhou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG 0.75 mg in 2 doses vs Mife 25 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: LNG 9/83; Mife 12/83 Side effects: no data Changes in menstrual pattern: Delay: LNG 6/74; Mife 12/71
Creinin 2006 Methods Randomised, double-blinded non-inferiority trial S tudy drug was supplied in sequentially numbered sealed packages containing 2 opaque capsules. The packages either contained a single opaque capsule with UPA (CDB-2914) 50 mg plus an identical placebo capsule or 2 opaque capsules, each with a tablet of LNG 0.75 mg The identication of the contents of the capsules was unknown to the investigators and the subjects 1672 healthy women aged at least 18 years of age not using any hormonal contraception who requested EC within 72 h after unprotected intercourse as a result of using no contraception, condom breakage or slippage, or failure of another barrier method To be eligible for enrolment, they were required to have had a recent history of regular menstrual cycles (24-42 days). At least 1 normal menstrual cycle ( 2 menses) was required after delivery, abortion or discontinuation of hormonal contraceptive Women randomly assigned to receive a single dose of UPA (CDB-2914) 50 mg plus a placebo 12 h later or 2 doses of LNG 0.75 mg taken 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
37
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Creinin 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Loss of follow-up: UPA 40/832; LNG 54/840 Post-randomisation exclusions: UPA 17/832; LNG 12/840 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: UPA 7/47/775; LNG 13/42/774
Dada 2010 Methods Women were randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomi s ation of double-blind trial was mentioned in the paper 3022 Nigeria women with regular menstrual cycles (24-42 days duration with variation of no more than 5 days), Desired EC within 120 h after a single act of unprotected coitus during the present menstrual cycle, agreed to abstain from further acts of intercourse during that cycle or to use a condom or diaphragm if this was not possible Available for follow-up over the next 6 weeks 2 -dose LNG: participants received 2 doses of LNG 0.75 mg administrated 12 h apart Single-dose LNG: p articipants received 1 dose of LNG 1.5 mg and 1 LNG placebo 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Randomisation sequence computer-generated by WHO in xed blocks of 8 Loss follow-up: 2-dose LNG 103/1512; single-dose LNG: 96/1510 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: 2-dose LNG: 8/ 165.8/1409; single-dose LNG: 9/169.1/1414 Side effects: Nausea: -2-dose LNG: 332/1512; single-dose LNG: 328/1510 Vomiting: 2-dose LNG: 132/1512; single-dose LNG: 137/1510 Fatigue: 2-dose LNG: 188/1512; single-dose LNG: 189/1510 Headache: 2-dose LNG: 175/1512; single-dose LNG: 181/1510 Dizziness: 2-dose LNG: 153/1512; single-dose LNG: 130/1510
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
38
Ding 2005 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 240 women attending the clinic in an MCH hospital, Henan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 75 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 10 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Mife 75 mg: 2; Mife 50 mg: 3; Mife 10 mg: 6 Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 75 mg: 1/78; Mife 50 mg: 1/77; Mife 10 mg: 1/74
Dong 2009 Methods Participants Women allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomisation not reported 200 women attending in a family planning clinic, Yuhuan, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods, and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife: 0/100; LNG: 1/100 Side effects: no detailed data Changes in menstrual pattern: no detailed data
39
Du 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 180 women attending a general hospital, Henan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern No mention of post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg: 1/8/ 90; Mife 10 mg: 1/7/90
Ellertson 2003 Methods Randomised, double-blind controlled trial Each dose of therapy was inserted in opaque gelatin capsules and then packaged in opaque envelopes labelled either rst dose or second dose Following computer generated randomisation the pairs were inserted into sequentially numbered opaque envelopes and sealed 2041 women at 5 centres in the US and UK within 72 h of a single, unprotected intercourse that occurred between 10 days before and 6 days after the estimated day of ovulation Included w omen aged 16-45 years, willing to abstain further in the current cycle, could attend follow-ups, keep a diary of side effects and refused the insertion of Cu-IUDs Excluded w omen who had used hormonal contraception during the past 2 months, had not had 2 normal periods in the previous 2 cycles, breastfeeding and those who had a positive pregnancy test Standard 2-dose Yuzpe regimen vs modied Yuzpe using norethindrone 2.0 mg instead of norgestrel 1.0 mg vs single dose of the standard Yuzpe regimen (followed 12 h later by a placebo) Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects, changes in menstrual pattern ITT analysis reported Overall 3.3% lost to follow-up; standard Yuzpe 21/696; modied Yuzpe 26/676; single-dose Yuzpe 21/669
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes

40
Ellertson 2003
(Continued)
Low risk
A - Adequate
Fan 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 103 women attending an MCH hospital, Hubei, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd a single act of unprotected intercourse within 96 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up total 5 women, 6 women excluded after randomisation Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 0/3/ 53; Mife 10 mg 1/2/39
Fang 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 200 women attending an MCH clinic in Guangzhou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg orally single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects, changes in menstrual pattern No mention of post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 50 mg 0/ 12/100, Mife 25 mg 1/13/100 No loss to follow-up
41
Farajkhoda 2009 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomi sation not reported P rospective, randomis ed, comparative study, includ ing 124 healthy volunteers who, in the observed cycle, had had only 1 act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of treatment R andomly allocated to LNG (n = 62) and Yuzpe (n = 62) Yuzpe: involved 2 doses of combined oestrogen/progestin pills, with each dose containing 100 g of ethinyl oestradiol and 500 g of LNG LNG: LNG 0.75 mg taken within 72 h of unprotected coitus and LNG 0.75 mg taken 12 h later Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Yuzpe: 5/60 (2 lost to follow-up); LNG: 0/62 Side effects: Nausea: Yuzpe 41/60; LNG 4/62 Vomiting: Yuzpe 15/60; LNG 0/62 Headache: Yuzpe 13/60; LNG 0/62 Weakness: Yuzpe 10/60; LNG 1/62 Hot ushes: Yuzpe 4/60; LNG 2/62
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Fu X 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 186 women attending an MCH hospital, Qinghai, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Anordrin 7.5 mg twice daily 12 h apart for 2 days vs Mife 50 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern No mention of post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: anordrin 3/8/90; Mife 1/5/96
42
Fu X 2000
(Continued)
High risk
C - Inadequate
Gan XH 2007 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomis ation not reported 456 women attending in an o bs/ gyn clinic, Boluo county hospital, Guangdong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods, and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/250; LNG 2/206 Side effects: Total side effects: Mife 32/250; LNG 30/206 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 14/248; LNG 20/204 Delay: Mife 40/248; LNG 22/204 Spotting: Mife 4/248; LNG 3/204
Glasier 1992 Methods Randomly allocated women to 2 treatment groups within pre-dened age groups (16-25 years, 26-34 years, 35-45 years). Cards with the treatment names on were put in sealed envelopes and allocation was made by shufing the cards There was no blinding, placebos were not used. Side eff ects were assessed by women 800 women attending a family planning clinic and an accident and emergency department in Edinburgh, UK Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 16-45 years who had had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of coming to the clinic Excluded women on oral contraceptives, regular prescription drugs, with medical contraindications, who were difcult to follow up and who would continue with the pregnancy in case of a failure Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + norgestrel 1 mg, repeated after 12 h) vs Mife 600 mg single dose
Participants
Interventions
43
Glasier 1992
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: 26/800 (3.3%), 3 with Mife; 23 with Yuzpe Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy rates not reported
Glasier 2010 Methods Enrolled women randomly assigned to receive UPA 30 mg or LNG 15 mg orally. Randomisation schedule stratied by site and time from unprotected sexual intercourse to treatment (within 72 h and 72-120 h) with a block size of 4 Single blind (women masked to treatment assignment, whereas those giving the interventions and study investigators were not, since the study drugs differed in appearance (different tablet size and blister pack)) Women with regular menstrual cycles who presented to a participating family planning clinic requesting emergency contraception within 5 days of unprotected sexual intercourse were eligible for enrolment Randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial 2221 women randomly assigned to UPA (CDB-2914) (n = 1104) or LNG (n = 1117) UPA 30 mg vs LNG 1.5 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: UPA 48/1104 women; LNG 40/1117(total 4%) Observed pregnancy/total number of women: UPA 15/941; LNG 25/958 Pregnancy in high-risk cases: UPA 4/53; LNG 5/51 Pregnancy in low-risk cases: UPA 11/888; LNG 20/907 Changes in menses: Early: UPA 67/1013; LNG 191/1031 Delay: UPA 177/1013; LNG 103/1031
Participants
44
Hamoda 2004 Methods Women presenting within 72 h of unprotected intercourse enroll ed . Women presenting beyond 72 h and up to 120 h were offered a Cu-IUD insertion as the rst treatment choice. Those declining IUD insertion were randomis ed to receive Mife 10 mg single tablet or 2 LNG 750 g tablets 12 h apart by opening sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes prepared using random number tables. The randomi sation envelopes were prepared in the Family Planning Clinic in Aberdeen, UK by a healthcare assistant not involved in the recruitment or data collection The study was not blinded, and both medical staff and patients were aware of the treatment assigned Eligible participants were women > 16 years of age with regular menstrual cycles (2135 days), who requested EC within 120 h of unprotected sexual intercourse. Advice was given to women to avoid further episodes of unprotected sexual intercourse within that cycle. Women with more than 1 episode of unprotected sexual intercourse within 120 h of presentation were also included in the study 2065 women recruited; 2043 women included in the data analysis. Mife 1022 women; LNG 1021 women Treatment outcome for women was known for 860 women (84.2%) in the Mife group and 858 (84.1%) in the LNG group Mife 10 mg single dose orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Mife 162/1022; LNG 163/1021 Post-randomisation exclusion: Mife 8/1030; LNG 12/1035 Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 13/860; LNG 20/858
Participants
Han 1995 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 139 women attending the outpatient clinic of a hospital in Beijing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs anordrin 7.5 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg orally single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
Interventions
Outcomes
45
Han 1995
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg twice: 0/4/46; anordrin 7.5 mg twice: 2/3/46; Mife + anordrin: 0/3/47 The pregnancy rates in relation to risk factors were not reported
Han 1996 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 300 healthy women in Beijing, China, with regular menstrual periods, aged 18-48 years, with a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 25 mg orally single dose, vs Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg twice 0/7/100; Mife 25 mg single dose 1/6/99; Mife + anordrin 1/7/101
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Han 1999a Methods Women randomly allocated into 2 groups in a 2:1 ratio. Me thod of randomisation not reported 214 women aged 21-45 years attending the o bs/ gyn clinic Chao Yang Hospital, Beijing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
Participants
46
Han 1999a
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: LNG 5/13/144; Mife 1/5/70
Han L 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 100 women attending a hospital clinic in Shanghai, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife single dose 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern No loss to follow-up and exclusions reported No pregnancies in either group
He CH 2002 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally, double-blinded by use of identical placebos 400 healthy women recruited into study from family planning clinics in Shanghai, China Included women with regular menstrual periods (24-42 days), who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic, and they were willing to avoid further acts of unprotected coitus during that cycle and willing to have an induced abortion if pregnancy was diagnosed following intake of the study drug during the study period Excluded women: current pregnancy or breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period and no contraindication to use of Mife or tamoxifen Mife (single dose) 10 mg + placebo vs Mife 10 mg + tamoxifen 20 mg
Participants
Interventions
47
He CH 2002
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Mife + placebo 2/200; Mife + tamoxifen 3/200 Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife + placebo 3/200; Mife + tamoxifen 1/200
Ho 1993 Methods Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. A random number table used to generate the allocation sequence and allocation was done by sealed envelopes. Placebos were not used. Side eff ects were recorded by women 880 healthy women attending Family Planning Association clinics in Hong Kong Included women with regular menstrual periods (21-35 days), aged 18-45 years, with a single act of unprotected intercourse within 48 h of attending the clinic Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + norgestrel 1 mg, repeated after 12 h) vs LNG 0.75 mg, orally, 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Yuzpe 15/22/ 424; LNG 12/20/410 Loss to follow-up: Yuzpe 16/440 (3.6%); LNG 30/440 (6.8%)
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Hu X 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not recorded 240 women attending the clinic in a general hospital, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods a nd a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen vs Mife 25 mg single- dose orally
48
Interventions
Hu X 2003
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: LNG 4/13/120; Mife 2/13/120
Lai Z 2004 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 300 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Qinghai, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern 20 women excluded after recruitment, 1 loss to follow-up Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 2/ 13/149; Mife 25 mg 2/11/130
Lan XL 2006 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Method of randomis ation not reported 200 women attending in o bs/ gyn clinic, No. 8 people s hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending clinic Mife 5 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
49
Lan XL 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 5 mg 1/100; Mife 10 mg 1/100 Side effects: Mife 5 mg: no side effects recorded Mife 10 mg: nausea 3/100; breast tenderness 1/100
Li 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 160 women attending a family planning clinic in Tianjing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number women: Mife 50 mg 0/79; Mife 25 mg 2/78 Change in menstrual pattern: not reported
Li A 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 234 women attending the clinic in an MCH hospital, Hainan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
50
Li A 2000
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 3/13/119; LNG 4/11/115
Li H 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups 90 women attending a clinic in Heilongjiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 150 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and change in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 150 mg 0/30; Mife 50 mg 0/30; Mife 25 mg 1/30
Li J 2005 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 202 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Guangxi, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/100; LNG 2/102
51
Li J 2005
(Continued)
Li W 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups 255 women attending the family planning clinics in Guizhou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg orally single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and change in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/120; LNG 3/135
Liang 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups 400 women attending an MCH hospital c linic in Heilongjiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally vs LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies and side eff ects Post-randomisation exclusions not reported, loss of follow: Mife 2 women; LNG 3 women Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/15/198; LNG 4/17/197
Risk of bias
52
Liang 2001
(Continued)
Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Liao 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups 200 women attending a Reproductive Medical Clinic in Wuhan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally vs LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and change in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/9/100; LNG 1/9/100
Lin 2000 Methods Participants Double-blind randomised trial. Me thod of randomisation not reported 120 women attending a family planning clinic in Tianjing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg + placebo 12 h apart vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number women: Mife + placebo 0/5/ 60; LNG 0/5/60
53
Lin 2000
(Continued)
Unclear risk
B - Unclear
Liu 2000 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally, double-blinded by use of identical placebos 100 healthy women recruited in the study from Henan Research Institute for family planning Included women with regular menstrual periods, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse or had multi-intercourse but the rst one within 72 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period Mife (single dose) 10 mg vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Mife 2 women; LNG 2 women -Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 0/4/48; LNG 2/4/48
Participants
Liu L 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 142 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Sichuan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg 2-doses 12 h apart vs a nordrin 7.5 mg 12 h later repeat 1 dose, then 7.5 mg per night for 10 days Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 0/10/76; anordrin 3/8/66
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Risk of bias
54
Liu L 2001
(Continued)
Liu L 2002 Methods Women randomly allocated into 2 groups in a 2:1 ratio. Me thod of randomisation not reported 285 women attending the g yn clinic in a general hospital, Hubei, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg orally vs Cu-IUD Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/20/190; Cu-IUD 0/11/95
Participants
Liu RQ 2009 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomi sation was not described 280 women attending in a family planning clinic, Wangdu, Hebei, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 3/140; LNG 2/140 Side effects: Mife: nausea and dizziness 6/140; breast tenderness 10/140 LNG: nausea and dizziness 8/140; breast tenderness 14/140 Changes in menstrual pattern: Mife 11/140; LNG 2/140
Risk of bias
Liu RQ 2009
(Continued)
Lou C 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 283 women attending the g yn clinic in a general hospital, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 50 mg 1/ 14/147; Mife 25 mg 2/14/136
Lou X 2005 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 142 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Sichuan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg + a nordrin 5 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife + anordrin 1/66; Mife 3/76
56
Lou X 2005
(Continued)
High risk
C - Inadequate
Ngai 2005 Methods The pharmacy department in Queen Mary Hospital generated the randomis ation sequence by computer program. D rug package was prepared by the pharmacy department according to the randomis ation list. Clinicians and participants were unaware of the drug assignment. The pharmacy kept the randomis ation list and it was revealed only at the nal analysis. LNG and placebo w er e supplied by the WHO. P lacebo was identical in colour, shape and size to LNG 2071 healthy women aged > 16 years were recruited from 5 sites in China (Beijing, Hong Kong, Nanjing, Shanghai and Shenzhen). All w o men had regular menstrual cycles (every 24-42 days) and requested EC within 120 h of a single act of unprotected intercourse; they were willing to abstain from further acts of unprotected intercourse and were available for follow-up over the next 6 weeks Exclusion criteria: post-abortion or post-partum patients whose period had not yet returned, regular use of prescription drugs before admission to the study and intercourse during the treatment cycle > 120 h before admission into the study. Women satisfying these criteria were admitted into the study after they had given written informed consent. 2060 women into efcacy analysis, 2071 women into safety analysis LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 24 h apart orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: 24 h apart LNG 24/1044; 12 h apart LNG 29/1027 Protocol violations: 24 h apart 6/1020; 12 h apart 5/998 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: 24 h apart LNG 20/71/1038; 12 h apart LNG 20/74/1022
Participants
Pei 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups 200 women attending a hospital clinic in Shanxi, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg orally vs LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart
Interventions
57
Pei 2001
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and change in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/100; LNG 2/100
Qi 2000b Methods Double-blind randomised multicentre trial Random number generation done centrally. Double-blinded by use of identical placebos 1209 women attending the family planning clinics in 11 provinces of China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Total of 85 cases lost to follow-up or missed data (7.03%) Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number women: Mife 25 mg 5/91/ 579; Mife 10 mg 12/78/545
Participants
Qi M 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 288 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Qinghai, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
58
Qi M 2003
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusions or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/17/150; LNG 9/15/138
Qian 1999 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 252 women attending a family planning clinic in Shenzhen, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife (single dose) orally 150 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 150 mg 1/ 7/86; Mife 50 mg 0/8/82; Mife 25 mg 1/8/84
Rowlands 1983 Methods Women r andomly allocated to 2 treatments. Side eff ects assessed through interviews with the women 101 healthy women attending a family planning clinic (Margaret Pyke Centre) in London, UK Included women who had unprotected intercourse within 120 h (included some women who had multiple acts of unprotected intercourse) Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + norgestrel 1 mg, repeated after 12 h) vs danazol 400 mg repeated after 12 h Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
59
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Rowlands 1983
(Continued)
Notes
Additional data provided by the authors. 6 women in the danazol group and 12 in the Yuzpe group were excluded after randomisation
Sang 1999 Methods Participants Single-blind randomised trial. Power calculation reported 2400 women attending urban hospital and family planning clinics in 5 cities in China Included only women who came after 24 h to 96 h of unprotected intercourse Excluded women who had irregular menstrual periods, multiple acts of intercourse, who had been using other oral contraceptives and whose normal menses had not resumed after an abortion or delivery Mife 25 mg vs Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg vs Mife 10 mg + anordrin 5 mg vs M ife 10 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions: 2 women Loss to follow-up: total of 11 cases (0.5%): Mife 25 mg 1; Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7. 5 mg 5; Mife 10 mg + anordrin 5 mg 6; Mife 10 mg 1 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 10/ 42/599; Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg 9/47.5/595; Mife 10 mg + anordrin 5 mg 7/42.6/ 594; Mife 10 mg 17/39.7/599 1 ectopic pregnancy in Mife 10 mg group
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Shao XY 2010 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomis ation not reported 102 women attending in a Chinese traditional medicine hospital, Tonglu, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic
60
Shao XY 2010
(Continued)
M ife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/57; LNG 2/45 Side effects: Mife: nausea 4/57; dizziness and headache 3/57; breast tenderness 4/57 LNG: nausea 4/45; dizziness and headache 4/45; breast tenderness 5/45 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 6/56; LNG 5/43 Delay: Mife 15/56; LNG 10/43 Spotting: Mife 3/56; LNG 11/43
Sheng A 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 200 women attending a family planning centre, Jiangsu, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/10/100; LNG 2/11/100
61
Sheng SY 2008 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomis ation not reported 200 women attending in a family planning clinic, Tongxiang, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG-COC 4 tablets (total ethinyl oestradiol 0.12 mg and LNG 0.6 mg) 2-dose 12 h apart orally vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: LNG-COC: 1/100; LNG: 1/100 Side effects: LNG-COC: nausea 33/100; vomiting 5/100; dizziness and fatigue 12/100 LNG: nausea 15/100; vomiting 3/100; dizziness and fatigue 9/100 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: LNG-COC 10/100; LNG 14/100 Delay: LNG-COC 8/100; LNG 10/100
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Su 2001 Methods Women who had had unprotected intercourse within 72 h were randomly allocated to Mife or LNG groups, and women had unprotected intercourse 72-120 h were assigned to an IUD group. Random isation took place between 2 types of pills 315 women attending a hospital clinic, Baotou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single unprotected intercourse within 72 to 120 h (in the case of IUDs) Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg twice orally vs Cu-IUD Observed number of pregnancies Post-randomisation exclusion or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: IUD 1/162; Mife 2/64; LNG 5/89 (1 ectopic pregnancy)
Participants
62
Sun 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 200 women attending a family planning clinic in Haerbing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg (single dose) orally vs LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/100, LNG 2/100
Sun MX 2007 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomis ation not reported 1100 women attending in a village clinic, Miyun county, Beijing, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose 12 h apart orally vs LNG-COC 4 tablets (total ethinyloestradiol 0. 12 mg and LNG 0.6 mg) 2-dose 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: LNG 11/557 (users failure 4); LNGCOC: 14/553 (users failure 6) Side effects: LNG: nausea and vomiting 100/557; dizziness and fatigue 39/557 LNG-COC: nausea and vomiting 227/553; dizziness and fatigue 45/553 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: LNG 76/557; LNG-COC 68/553 Delay: LNG 66/557; LNG-COC 55/553 Spotting: LNG 61/557; LNG-COC 73/553
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
63
Sun P 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 60 women attending the clinic in a general hospital, Hubei, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs LNG 0.75 2-dose 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/30; LNG 8/30
Tan 1999 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 145 women (aged 18-47 years) attending the family planning clinics in Guangzhou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 12.5 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 25 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 12.5 mg twice 0/6/62; Mife 25 mg twice 2/5/83
64
Tan L 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 150 women attending the clinic in a general hospital, Hubei, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 12.5 mg vs Mife 25 mg 2-dose 12 h apart vs Mife 150 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 12.5 mg 1/ 4/50; Mife 25 mg 0/3/50; Mife 150 mg 0/3/50
Van Santen 1985a Methods Randomised, double-blind trial. Random number sequence generated from a random number table. A numbered strip containing the capsules given to participating women. Masking achieved by giving each woman the active and corresponding placebo treatments. Side eff ects were assessed by women 465 healthy women attending Utrecht State University Hospital, the Netherlands Included women with regular menstrual periods, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse Excluded women who were breastfeeding, on medications and difcult to follow up Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + norgestrel 1 mg, repeated after 12 h) on day 1 + placebo capsules for 4 days vs ethinyl oestradiol 5 mg dose followed by a placebo capsule 12 h later followed by ethinyl oestradiol 5 mg single daily dose for 4 days Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Yuzpe 1/11/200; ethinyl oestradiol 5 mg 2/12/184 Loss to follow-up 5.7% altogether
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
65
Von Hertzen 2002 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally, double-blinded by use of identical placebos. Allocation concealment achieved by sealed, sequentially numbered, treatment packs 4136 healthy women recruited in the study from 15 family planning clinics in 10 countries Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 14-52 years, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period Mife (single dose) 10 mg vs LNG 1.5 mg (single dose) vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 21/ 108/1359; single-dose LNG 20/111/1356; split-dose LNG 24/106/1356 (1 ectopic pregnancy) Lost to follow-up: Mife 10 mg 20/1380; single-dose LNG 22/1379; split-dose LNG 19/1377 ITT: 4071 into efcacy analysis, 4084 into safety analysis
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Wang 1999 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 108 women attending the o bs/ gyn clinic in Tianjing No. 1 Peoples Hospital, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs anordrin 7.5 mg on the rst day 2 doses 12 h apart, then 7.5 mg /day for 10 days, total dosage of a nordrin 90 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 0/6/52; anordrin 3/7/56
Interventions
Outcomes Notes

66
Wang 1999
(Continued)
High risk
C - Inadequate
Wang C 2000 Methods Women were given choice for Cu-IUD or ECPs and those choosing ECPs were randomly allocated to 2 ECP groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 150 women attending the family planning clinics in Shandong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnant/total number women: Mife 1/3/50; LNG 1/4/50
Participants
Wang J 2006 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 198 women attending the g yn clinic in a general hospital, Anhui, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg orally single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 1/9/ 98; Mife 25 mg 1/9/100
67
Wang L 2004 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 1200 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Shandong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 12.5 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 12.5 mg 6/ 55/600; Mife 25 mg 6/53/600
Wang Q 2000 Methods Participants W omen r andomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 131 women attending an MCH hospital in Guangdong, China Included women who had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 25 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number women: LNG 2/5/63; Mife 1/4/68
68
Wang SZ 2001 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally, double-blinded by use of identical placebos 200 healthy women recruited in the study from an o bs/g yn clinic in Wuhan, China Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 22-42 years, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period Mife (single dose) 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 1/ 10/100; Mife 25 mg 1/10/100
Participants
Wang Y 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 262 women attending the clinic in an MCH hospital, Shanxi, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow: Mife 2; LNG 1 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/17/132; LNG 3/13/127
69
Wang ZW 2008 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomis ation not reported 100 women attending in an obs/ gyn clinic, No. 5 hospital, Haerbin Medical University, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 1/50; Mife 10 mg 1/50 Side effects: Mife 25 mg: nausea and vomiting 3/50; dizziness 2/50; breast tenderness 1/50; fatigue 2/50; diarrhoea 3/50 Mife 10 mg: nausea and vomiting 2/50; dizziness 1/50; breast tenderness 1/50; fatigue 2/50; diarrhoea 2/50 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 25 mg 1/49; Mife 10 mg 1/49 Delay: Mife 25 mg 6/49; Mife 10 mg 5/49 Spotting: Mife 25 mg 1/49; Mife 10 mg 1/49
Webb 1992 Methods Women r andomly allocated to 3 groups. Random number generation by computer. Schedule prepared by someone not involved in recruitment and outcome assessment. No blinding or use of placebos reported. Side eff ects were recorded by women 616 healthy women attending a community family planning clinic in Liverpool, UK Included women with regular menstrual periods (21-35 days), aged 16-45 years, with a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + norgestrel 1 mg, repeated after 12 h ) vs danazol 600 mg twice 12 h apart vs Mife 600 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: 27/616 (4.4%). Pregnancy outcome assessed in 94%, side effects in 94%, menstrual changes in 92% of women Trial stopped after recruitment of 616 of the 1200 initially targeted because of differences in efcacy in an interim analysis Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Yuzpe: 5/11/191; danazol: 9/12/193; Mife 0/12/195
70
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Webb 1992
(Continued)
Wei H 2011 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 100 women attending in a clinic, Anhui, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 1/50; Mife 10 mg 0/50 Side effects: Any side effect: Mife 25 mg 4/50; Mife 10 mg 3/50 Changes in menstrual pattern: Spotting: Mife 25 mg 7/49; Mife 10 mg 3/50
Wei RH 2002 Methods Participants Randomis ed double-blind trial by use of identical placebos 200 women attending the g yn clinic in a general hospital, Hainan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 2/ 11/100; Mife 10 mg 1/10/100
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias) Authors judgement Unclear risk Support for judgement B - Unclear
71
WHO 1998 Methods Randomised double-blind multinational trial. Random number generation done centrally. Double-blinded by use of identical placebos. Allocation concealment achieved by sealed, sequentially numbered, tinted bottles lled and labelled by the manufacturer 1998 healthy women at 21 centres worldwide Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 18-45 years, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period 1955 women into the nal analysis Yuzpe (ethinyl oestradiol 100 g + LNG 0.50 mg , repeated after 12 h ) vs LNG 0.75 mg twice 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Yuzpe 18/997 (1.8%); LNG 25/1001 (2.5%) Post-randomisation exclusion (ITT analysis) not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Yuzpe 31/72/ 979; LNG 11/75.3/976
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
WHO 1999 Methods Randomised controlled multinational trial. Randomisation sequence was generated centrally at the WHO and women randomised to 3 groups within centres. Sequentially numbered bottles, each containing 3 pills were given to women at the centre. Each bottle contained the active and placebo pills accordingly. However, 200 mg pills were slightly larger and, therefore, not all pills were identical. Power calculation was made 1717 women attending family planning clinics in 11 centres in 6 countries Included women with regular menstrual cycles, within 120 h of a single act of unprotected intercourse and who were willing to avoid intercourse for the rest of the current cycle Excluded women who were breastfeeding, with uncertain date of last menstrual period, use of hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with a contraindication to M ife use 1684 women included in the nal analysis Mife 600 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 10 mg. All taken orally as a single dose at the time of enrolment Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
72
WHO 1999
(Continued)
Notes
Loss to follow-up: 32/1717 (1.9%) Exclusion: 1 woman was excluded because she was pregnant at the time of enrolment. There were 15 protocol violations (cycle length outside admissible range, treatment after 120 h, further use of EC in the same cycle) but these were included in the analysis Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 600 mg 7/ 45/559; Mife 50 mg 6/43/560; Mife 10 mg 7/48/565 2 ectopic pregnancies in Mife 50 mg group
Wu 1999a Methods Double-blind randomised trial. Random number generation done centrally. Doubleblinded by use of identical placebos. Allocation concealment achieved by sealed, sequentially numbered, tinted bottles lled and labelled by the manufacturer 1324 women in 16 urban family planning clinics in China Included only women who came within 72 h of unprotected intercourse Excluded women with irregular menstrual periods, with multiple acts of intercourse, on oral contraceptives and post-abortal women whose menstrual periods had not returned to normal LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 10 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern 20 women excluded altogether (reasons not stated) Loss to follow-up 28 (2.1%) in the 2 groups Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: LNG 20/49/643; Mife 9/44/633
Participants
73
Wu 2002 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally, double-blinded by use of identical placebos. Allocation concealment achieved by sealed, sequentially numbered, tinted bottles lled and labelled by manufacturer 903 healthy women recruited in the study from 10 clinics in Shanghai, China Included women with regular menstrual periods (22-42 days), who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic and they were willing to avoid further acts of unprotected coitus during that cycle and willing to have an induced abortion if pregnancy was diagnosed following intake of the study drug during the study period Excluded women with current pregnancy or breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period Mife 25 mg, 24 h later misoprostol 0.2 mg vs Mife 10 mg, 24 h later misoprostol 0.2 mg vs M ife (single dose) 10 mg + placebo Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: total 3 cases, 1 case protocol violation Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg + misoprostol 2/22/300; Mife 10 mg + misoprostol 2/21/299; Mife 10 mg + placebo 7/22/ 300
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Wu 2010 Methods Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. M ethod of randomis ation double-blind trial was reported 998 healthy women with regular menstrual cycles and negative urine pregnancy tests who were requesting emergency contraception up to 72 h after unprotected coitus to receive single-dose gestrinone 10 mg or M ife 10 mg Gestrinone: 4 gestrinone 2.5 mg capsules, and 1 placebo tablet identical in appearance to M ife Mife : 1 Mife 10 mg tablet and 4 placebo capsules identical in appearance to gestrinone Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: gestrinone 12/ 37/498; Mife 9/38/498 Lost to follow-up: 2/998 Side effects: Nausea: gestrinone 38/498; Mife 51/498
74
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Wu 2010
(Continued)
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Vomiting: gestrinone 1/498; Mife 1/498 Diarrhoea: gestrinone 4/498; Mife 1/498 Fatigue: gestrinone 9/498; Mife 18/498 Dizziness: gestrinone 8/498; Mife 13/498
Authors judgement Low risk
Support for judgement A - Adequate
Xiao 2002 Methods Randomised double-blind multicentre trial. Random number generation done centrally Double-blinded by use of identical placebos 3052 healthy women recruited in the study from the 10 centres in China Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 19-49 years, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Excluded women who were breastfeeding, on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain dates of last menstrual period 3030 into efcacy analysis, 3033 into safety analysis Mife (single dose) 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up: Mife 10 mg 11/1527; Mife 25 mg 11/1525 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 17/ 115/1516; Mife 25 mg 17/126/1514
Participants
Xie 1998 Methods Participants Women r andomly allocat ed to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 600 women attending an urban MCH Hospital in Fuzhou, China Excluded women attending after 72 h , irregular menstrual periods and who had multiple acts of intercourse Mife 150 mg vs M ife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg, all single dose
Interventions
75
Xie 1998
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion or loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 150 mg 5/ 17/200; Mife 50 mg 8/15/200; Mife 25 mg 5/15/200
Xie HH 2010 Methods Participants Interventions Women allocated to 3 groups. The method was not reported 120 women attending in a family planning clinic, Shenzhen, China Mife 25 mg single dose vs Mife 10 mg single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 8/60; Mife 10 mg 7/60 Side effects: Total side effects: Mife 25 mg 11/60; Mife 10 mg 9/60 Changes in menstrual pattern: Early: Mife 25 mg 15/52; Mife 10 mg 15/53 Delay: Mife 25 mg 7/52; Mife 10 mg 8/53
Outcomes Notes
Xu 2000 Methods Participants Women r andomly allocat ed to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 400 women attending the family planning clinic in Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart
Interventions
76
Xu 2000
(Continued)
Outcomes Notes
Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern 197 Post-randomisation exclusion and loss of follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected/total number women: Mife 2/15/198; LNG 4/17/ Side effects: Mife 16/198; LNG 21/197 Lost to follow-up: Mife 2/200; LNG 3/200
Xu Z 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 266 women attending a family planning centre, Jianfsu, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs anordrin 7.5 mg 12 h late repeat 1 dose, then 7.5 mg per night for 8 days vs LNG 0.75 mg 2-dose regimen Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss of follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 2/9/94; anordrin 3/8/86; LNG 2/8/86
Interventions
Outcomes Notes
Yang 2001 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 4 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 358 healthy women recruited into the study from clinics of MCH hospital in Guangzhou, China Included women with regular menstrual periods, aged 17-46 years, who had a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic and they were willing to use condom for further acts of unprotected coitus during that cycle Excluded women on hormonal contraception in the current cycle and those with uncertain
77
Yang 2001
(Continued)
dates of last menstrual period Interventions Mife 25 mg twice , 12 h apart vs anordrin 7.5 mg ,twice 12 h apart vs danazol 400 mg , twice 12 h apart Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 1/14/121; anordrin 4/13/117; danazol 5/14/120
Outcomes Notes
Yang F 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 92 women attending the clinic in a general hospital, Hunan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 50 mg orally single dose Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss of follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 1/5/ 52; Mife 50 mg 0/4/40
Zeng MY 2008 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. The method of randomis ation not reported 100 women attending in an MCH hospital, Wuhua county, Guangzhou, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic
78
Zeng MY 2008
(Continued)
Mife 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 1/60; Mife 25 mg 1/40 Side effects: Total side effects: Mife 10 mg 3/60; Mife 25 mg 4/40 Changes in menstrual pattern: Delay: Mife 10 mg 8/60; Mife 25 mg 4/40 Spotting: Mife 10 mg 9/59; Mife 25 mg 2/39
Zeng XY 2007 Methods Participants Women allocated to 2 groups. The method of allocation was not reported 100 women attending in a county hospital, Zhejiang, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg + MTX 5 mg vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife + MTX: 0/50; Mife: 1/50 Side effects: Nausea and vomiting: Mife + MTX 6/50; Mife 5/50 Changes in menstrual pattern: Delay: Mife + MTX 22/50; Mife 20/49
Zhang JQ 2000 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated into 4 groups 782 women attending a hospital clinic in Qinhai, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg 2 doses 12 h apart vs LNG 0.75 mg 2 doses 12 h apart vs M ife 25 mg single dose vs Mife 25 mg + LNG 0.75 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern
Interventions
Outcomes
79
Zhang JQ 2000
(Continued)
Notes
-Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported -Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number women: Mife 25 mg twice 1/15/212; LNG 1/16/205; Mife 25 mg 3/13/182; Mife 25 + LNG 4/13/183
Zhang L 2005 Methods Participants Double-blind randomis ed single centre trial 220 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Guangdong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg single dose vs Mife 10 mg 2-dose 12 h apart orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: single-dose Mife 1/11/112; 2-dose Mife 1/11/108
Risk of bias Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias) Authors judgement Unclear risk Support for judgement B - Unclear
Zhang X 1999a Methods Participants Women randomly allocated into 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 360 women attending the family planning clinics in Chengwu (a county in Shandong), China. W omen had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart vs Mife 10 mg qd for 5 days vs Mife 10 mg qd for 3 days Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern
Interventions
Outcomes
80
Zhang X 1999a
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg twice 2/13/120; Mife 10 mg qd/5 days 0/12/118; Mife 10 mg qd/3 days 1/11/116
Zhang Y 1998 Methods Participants Randomis ed trial. Me thod of randomisation not reported 309 women attending family planning clinics in Beijing, China Included only women attending within 72 h of an unprotected intercourse Excluded women with irregular menstrual periods, who used oral contraceptives and those who had not resumed normal menses after an abortion or delivery Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg vs Mife 5 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusions not reported Loss to follow-up 5.8% (18/309) altogether Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 1/6/ 99; Mife 10 mg 1/7/92; Mife 5 mg 2/7/100
Zhang Y 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 135 women attending the clinic in a general hospital, Henan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 100 mg vs Mife 50 mg vs Mife 10 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern
81
Zhang Y 2002
(Continued)
Notes
Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 100 mg 0/45; Mife 50 mg 0/45; Mife 10 mg 0/45
Zhang YM 2002 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 2 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 116 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Sichuan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 10 mg + a nordrin 5 mg vs Mife 25 mg Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/total number of women: Mife + anordrin 0/58; Mife 0/58
Zhao J 2003 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 270 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Shandong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 50 mg vs Mife 25 mg vs Mife 10 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 50 mg 1/8/ 90; Mife 25 mg 1/9/90; Mife 10 mg 1/9/90
82
Zhao J 2003
(Continued)
Zheng A 2005 Methods Participants Women randomly allocated to 3 groups. Me thod of randomisation not reported 200 women attending the gyn clinic in a general hospital, Hunan, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife 25 mg vs Mife 600 mg single dose orally Observed number of pregnancies, side eff ects and changes in menstrual pattern Post-randomisation exclusion and loss to follow-up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 25 mg 2/ 10/100; Mife 600 mg 2/10/100
Zuo 1999 Methods Double-blind randomised trial Random number generation done centrally. Double-blinded by use of identical placebos 668 women recruited from 14 family planning clinics in Changsha, China. Women aged < 40 years had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 72 h of attending the clinic Mife (single dose) 10 mg vs Mife 25 mg orally Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern Loss to follow-up 8/668 Observed pregnancy/expected pregnancy/total number of women: Mife 10 mg 3/ 26/321; Mife 25 mg 2/24/339
Participants
83
Zuo 1999
(Continued)
COC: combined oral contraceptive; Cu-IUD: copper intrauterine device; EC: emergency contraception; h: hour; ITT: intention to treat; IUD: intrauterine device; LNG: levonorgestrel; MCH: maternal and child health; Mife: mifepristone; MTX: methotrexate; qd: four times daily; UPA: ulipristal acetate; WHO: World Health Organization 21
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Study Ashok 2001 Ashok 2004
Reason for exclusion Not an RCT or quasi-RCT It is the same clinical trial as Ashok 2002. The objective of this paper was to compare side effects, womens acceptance and satisfaction with Mife 100 mg vs the Yuzpe regimen for EC Not an RCT Not an RCT RCT to compare LNG vs Yuzpe in 4 clinics. The primary objective of this study was to determine side effects and acceptability of 2 ECP regimens among users in Kampala, Uganda. There was no effectiveness result in the data and the side effects were assessed on a semi-quantitative scale Meta-analysis, not a clinical trial An RCT in an outpatient clinic setting. Objective was to assess insertion-linked pain and the short-term useracceptability and safety of the GyneFix as compared with T-framed IUDs. No effectiveness result mentioned in this paper Comparative study of ethinyl oestradiol 5 mg/day and conjugated oestrogens at 30 mg/day for 5 days. The study was conducted in 5 centres, 2 of which prescribed the drugs alternately. In these 2 centres, none of the 137 women who received ethinyl oestradiol became pregnant while 6 out of 132 women receiving conjugated oestrogens became pregnant. No other details were available for these centres An observational study on Mife vs LNG vs Cu-IUD for EC, not an RCT An observational study, not an RCT
Ban 2001 Benagiano G 2010 Byamugisha 2010
Creinin 1997 DSouza 2003
Dixon 1980
Dong 2007 Ellertson 2003a
84
(Continued)
Espinos 1999 Fan 1998
Not an RCT Not an RCT 518 women used Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg for EC, 1 observed pregnancy/40 expected pregnancies Not an RCT 1013 women used Cu-IUD for EC, 2 women got pregnant Review paper A prospective, multicentre, open-label study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UPA as EC in women presenting 48-120 h after unprotected intercourse. 1241 women from 45 planned parenthood clinics were treated with a single dose of UPA 30 mg Not an RCT 200 women used Mife 10 mg for EC, 2 observed pregnancies/15 expected pregnancies No mention of random allocation Not an RCT Not an RCT Not an EC study Not an RCT Randomised and non-randomised groups of women analysed together. Randomised groups were published separately and included in this review (Rowlands 1983) A systematic review, not an RCT Part of Sang 1999 study Not an RCT 126 women used GyneFix IUD for EC, no one got pregnant/12 expected pregnancies Not an RCT Not an EC study; it is a study on regular postcoital use of LNG Not an RCT or quasi-RCT No mention of random allocation Not an RCTor quasi-RCT 120 women used R2323 (gestrinone) 5 mg as ECPwithin 120 h of intercourse
85
Fan H 2001
Fasoli 1989 Fine 2010
Gan 1999
Gan SX 2001 Gao ER 2001 Gottardi 1979 Gottardi 1986 Gu XY 2002 Guillebaud 1983
Halpern V 2010 Han 1999b Han Y 2001
Haspels 1976 He 1991 Hoffman 1983 Jiang 2000 Jiang 2002
(Continued)
Jin 2005 Kesser 1973 Li XY 2001
Part of a large WHO multicentre dose-nding study of Mife (see WHO 1999) Not an RCT; also it is a study on regular postcoital contraception Not an RCT or quasi-RCT 100 women used Mife 25 mg as ECPs within 72 h of intercourse. 2 women got pregnant Not an RCT 150 women used Mife 25 mg as ECPs within 72 h of intercourse. 3 women got pregnant Not an RCT After introduction of IUD and ECPs, women chose one of the EC methods that they wanted 2 groups (Cu375-IUD vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally). Observed/expected pregnancy/total number of women: IUD 0/12/150; Mife 4/13/150 Not an RCT Not an RCT Not an RCT After introduction of IUD and ECPs, women chose the method that wanted to use 2 groups (Cu375-IUD vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally). Observed/expected pregnancy/total number of women: IUD 1/8/80; Mife 1/9/80 Not an RCT Not an RCT 110 women used Mife 25 mg single dose for EC, 1 got pregnant An RCT, but the loss of follow was 20% A prospective, open-label, cross-over study comparing the physiological effects of vaginally and orally administered EC. They concluded the vaginal route of administration of EC regimens may be as efcacious as the oral route A meta-analyses of Mife 10 mg for EC A meta-analyses of effectiveness of different dosages of Mife for EC Not an RCT 622 women used Mife 25 mg for EC. 5 got pregnant, the effective rate was 91.25% Not an RCT 140 women used Mife 25 mg in combination with MTX 5 mg for EC. No one got pregnant Not an RCT An RCT of meclizine to prevent nausea associated with Yuzpe regimen
86
Li F 2002
Li F 2005
Lippes 1976 Lippes 1979 Liu Y 2002
Luerti 1986 Ma 2001
Mo 2004 Mor 2005
Piaggio 2003 Piaggio 2003a Qi 2000
Qiao 2002
Qin 2000 Raymond 2000
(Continued)
Raymond 2006
A study to assess how a strategy to maximise access to ECP would affect rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections Not an RCT. It is a letter to the editor Not an RCT Not an RCT Conducted to assess the role of advanced supply of EC to teenage mothers Not an RCT Not an RCT. Investigated side effects after the standard Yuzpe regimen or 2 modications Not an RCT Review Not an RCT After introduction of IUD and ECPs, women chose one of the two methods that they wanted 2 groups (Cu375-IUD vs Mife 25 mg single dose orally). Observed/expected pregnancy/total number of women: IUD 0/8/80; Mife 2/7/80 A prospective observational study, not an RCT Not an RCT This study has been excluded because the report includes 1 group of a randomised comparison study published elsewhere and another cohort of women receiving the same treatment (Yuzpe regimen) Not an RCT Not an RCT Not an RCT 309 women used Mife 25 mg for EC. 209 women taken the pill within 72 h, and 3 of them got pregnant; 100 women took the pill 72-120 h and 2 of them got pregnant Not an RCT 793 women used Mife 25 mg single dose, 6 observed pregnancies/58 expected pregnancies Review Not an RCT A total of 4945 women were recruited in 31 clinical centres in 18 provinces and municipalities in China in a descriptive clinical trial with 1 dose (Mife 10 mg) treatment. 28 cases lost to follow-up. An analysis of 4917 cases showed a pregnancy rate of 1.4% (95% CI 1.1% to 1.8%) and an effectiveness of prevention of pregnancy
87
Roye 2001 Scarduelli 1998 Schilling 1979 Schreiber 2010 Shen HX 2010 Shochet 2004 Song ZH 2007 Sun 2005 Tian Q 2000
Turok 2010 Van Santen 1983 Van Santen 1985b
Virjo 1999 Wang CP 2006 Wei R 2002
Wu 1999b
Wu 2005 Xiao 2004
(Continued)
of 82.2% (95% CI 77.5% to 86.2%). No trend of increase of pregnancies with delay of treatment was found. Increase of risk of pregnancy in women who had unprotected intercourse after treatment is about 11.1 times higher. Side effects were mild and in small proportion of women, such as nausea and vomiting in 9.2% and other side effects in 0.7% to 3.7% of women. Delay of menstruation over 7 days occurred in 6.5% of women Yang 2002 Not an RCT 106 women used Mife 10 mg for EC within 72 h of intercourse. Among them, 1 case pregnancy and 1 loss to follow-up Review No randomised comparison No randomised comparison No randomised comparison Not an RCT 200 women were divided into 2 groups (Mife 25 mg or IUD). Women who had unprotected intercourse within 72 h were given Mife and within 72-120 h given IUD. 0 pregnancy/10 expected pregnancies in IUD group, 2 observed pregnancies/8 expected pregnancies in Mife group Part of Sang 1999 study Results have been included in Sang 1999 Not an RCT 123 women used LNG 0.75 mg orally 2 doses 12 h apart, 1 observed pregnancy/13 expected pregnancies Not an RCT A questionnaire survey among 301 women who had LNG EC failure and had abortion Not an RCT Not an RCT. 17 women used Mife 25 mg + MTX 5 mg for EC, no one got pregnant Not an RCT Study conducted in Milan, Italy, which started reporting in 1986. The rst report refers to an ongoing randomised trial comparing ethinyl oestradiol-norgestrel combination (Yuzpe regimen) to danazol 800 mg in 835 women. Subsequently, it is reported that 1000 women were randomised trial and, afterwards, a third group (danazol 1200 mg) comparison was added. There was no report from which the results for the 1000 women randomised to Yuzpe and danazol 800 mg can be extracted. In subsequent reports in 1988 and 1990, the results are reported with randomised and non-randomised groups together and, therefore, this study has been excluded from analysis
Yu 2001 Yuzpe 1974 Yuzpe 1977 Yuzpe 1982 Zhang J 1999
Zhang M 1999 Zhang X 1999 Zhang X 1999b
Zhao 2006
Zhao H 2001 Zhu 1999 Zhu YH 2007 Zuliani 1990
88
CI: condence interval; Cu-IUD: copper-intrauterine device; EC: emergency contraception; ECP: emergency contraceptive pill; IUD: intrauterine device; LNG: levonorgestrel; Mife: mifepristone; MTX: methotrexate; RCT: randomised controlled trial; UPA: ulipristal acetate
89
DATA AND ANALYSES
Comparison 1. Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies
No. of studies 1
No. of participants 300
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.09 [0.03, 0.26]
Comparison 2. Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 24 h 3.2 25-48 h 3.3 49-72 h 3.4 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Abdominal pain 6.8 Hot ushes 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
No. of studies 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 5 5 4 2 2 2 5 1 1 2 3 2 3
No. of participants 4221 2781 888 1893 2632 1343 952 337 0 1955 1955 4221 3111 2789 2077 2789 4221 1955 122 1944 3298 1310 1988
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.54 [0.36, 0.80] 0.50 [0.31, 0.82] 0.39 [0.19, 0.80] 0.64 [0.32, 1.26] 0.48 [0.28, 0.82] 0.51 [0.19, 1.34] 0.42 [0.19, 0.94] 0.57 [0.19, 1.77] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.53 [0.38, 0.75] 0.80 [0.75, 0.86] Subtotals only 0.42 [0.38, 0.46] 0.23 [0.18, 0.30] 0.84 [0.69, 1.01] 0.78 [0.65, 0.94] 0.72 [0.61, 0.85] 0.63 [0.55, 0.71] 0.84 [0.70, 1.01] 0.48 [0.09, 2.54] 0.86 [0.64, 1.15] 1.19 [0.99, 1.44] 1.15 [0.86, 1.52] 1.23 [0.96, 1.57]
90
Comparison 3. Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Lower abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
No. of studies 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
No. of participants 2060 2012 446 1566 0 0 0 0 0 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 0 2071 0 0 0 1978 0 1978
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.98 [0.53, 1.82] 0.98 [0.53, 1.81] 0.39 [0.13, 1.23] 1.56 [0.71, 3.42] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 0.96 [0.72, 1.29] 0.83 [0.37, 1.85] 0.60 [0.40, 0.91] 0.89 [0.58, 1.36] 1.23 [0.86, 1.74] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.76 [0.53, 1.08] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.79 [0.53, 1.17] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.79 [0.53, 1.17]
Comparison 4. Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose
No. of studies 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 0
No. of participants 6653 2712 792 1920 5489 4873 616 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.84 [0.53, 1.33] 0.83 [0.46, 1.49] 0.56 [0.22, 1.41] 1.10 [0.51, 2.40] 0.95 [0.57, 1.57] 0.86 [0.48, 1.54] 1.26 [0.46, 3.43] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
91
5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Lower abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
0 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
0 6804 6804 3782 6804 6804 5742 3782 2720 2720 1062 4902 1118 3784
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 0.97 [0.88, 1.07] 1.01 [0.83, 1.22] 1.12 [0.91, 1.37] 1.14 [1.01, 1.30] 0.91 [0.79, 1.05] 1.01 [0.88, 1.15] 0.90 [0.77, 1.05] 1.21 [0.81, 1.79] 1.00 [0.90, 1.12] 1.48 [1.08, 2.04] 0.91 [0.78, 1.05] 0.67 [0.54, 0.82] 1.18 [0.96, 1.46]
Comparison 5. Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effect 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Abdominal pain 6.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife)
No. of studies 20 1 1 1 0 0 13 7 4 0 4 1 2 0 1 5 12 3 12 15
No. of participants 5012 599 77 522 0 0 3532 713 0 713 131 302 0 200 1266 3593 794 2799 3758
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.64 [0.45, 0.92] 1.63 [0.26, 10.24] 1.14 [0.11, 12.05] 2.57 [0.12, 53.29] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.58 [0.41, 0.82] Subtotals only 0.81 [0.48, 1.36] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.88 [0.52, 1.49] 0.66 [0.22, 1.98] 0.85 [0.26, 2.80] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.43 [0.11, 1.61] 0.63 [0.39, 1.02] 1.17 [0.97, 1.40] 0.76 [0.47, 1.23] 1.26 [1.03, 1.54] 0.50 [0.32, 0.77]
92
9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife)
15
3758
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.57 [0.37, 0.88]
Comparison 6. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effect 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Low abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 6.11 Hot ushes 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife) 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife)
No. of studies 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 5 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 0 1 6 2 6 9
No. of participants 8336 4071 1235 2836 6074 5553 521 0 455 6384 6085 6084 6082 6181 6077 5105 4184 4182 0 723 8488 1384 7104 8429
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.70 [0.50, 0.97] 0.92 [0.55, 1.55] 1.32 [0.67, 2.60] 0.59 [0.25, 1.35] 0.85 [0.56, 1.28] 0.82 [0.53, 1.27] 1.11 [0.35, 3.57] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.24 [0.15, 0.37] Subtotals only 0.95 [0.84, 1.09] 1.22 [0.55, 2.68] 1.03 [0.88, 1.21] 1.06 [0.83, 1.37] 0.92 [0.79, 1.08] 1.06 [0.94, 1.21] 0.94 [0.83, 1.06] 1.26 [0.93, 1.73] 0.62 [0.55, 0.70] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.93 [0.65, 1.33] 1.24 [1.09, 1.40] 0.44 [0.33, 0.58] 1.75 [1.51, 2.03] 0.70 [0.50, 0.98]
8429
0.90 [0.76, 1.05]
93
Comparison 7. Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 24 h 3.2 24-48 h 3.3 > 48-72 h 3.4 > 72-96 h 3.5 > 96-120 h 4 Observed number of pregnancy within 0-72 h 5 Need for extra dose 6 Any side effect 7 Specic side effects 7.1 Nausea 7.2 Vomiting 7.3 Breast tenderness 7.4 Headache 7.5 Dizziness 7.6 Fatigue 7.7 Lower abdominal pain 7.8 Diarrhoea 7.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 7.10 Dysmenorrhoea 7.11 Abdominal pain 7.12 Upper abdominal pain 7.13 Back pain 8 Menses 8.1 Early 8.2 Delay
No. of studies 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
No. of participants 3448 3445 171 3274 3447 1185 1213 846 136 67 3245 0 0 3770 1549 1549 3770 3770 3770 1549 1549 1549 2221 2221 2221 2221 7186 3593 3593
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.59 [0.35, 0.99] 0.58 [0.35, 0.97] 0.79 [0.25, 2.46] 0.54 [0.30, 0.97] 0.61 [0.37, 1.00] 0.40 [0.15, 1.05] 1.33 [0.59, 3.00] 0.34 [0.11, 1.06] 0.23 [0.01, 4.73] 0.32 [0.01, 7.68] 0.63 [0.37, 1.07] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 1.14 [0.93, 1.41] 1.00 [0.14, 7.07] 1.07 [0.53, 2.14] 1.02 [0.87, 1.20] 1.06 [0.78, 1.45] 1.22 [0.91, 1.62] 1.15 [0.69, 1.90] 1.09 [0.48, 2.45] 0.71 [0.23, 2.24] 0.90 [0.73, 1.11] 0.76 [0.54, 1.06] 0.81 [0.53, 1.24] 1.31 [0.80, 2.15] 0.83 [0.75, 0.92] 0.43 [0.37, 0.50] 1.65 [1.42, 1.92]
94
Comparison 8. Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Lower abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
No. of studies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No. of participants 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.67 [0.11, 3.89] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.75 [0.27, 2.07] Subtotals only 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Comparison 9. mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 24 h 3.2 24-48 h 3.3 > 48-72 h
No. of studies 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.70 [0.12, 4.17] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
95
4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Lower abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 7 Delay of menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 200 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 7.0 [0.37, 133.78] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 3.0 [0.12, 72.77] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Comparison 10. Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Diarrhoea 4.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
No. of studies 25 3 3 3 11 18 13 6 9 6 10 12 4 9 11 21 7 21
No. of participants 11914 4715 1544 3171 2464 7948 6082 6010 6329 3512 8209 4870 5746 5078
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.73 [0.55, 0.97] 0.83 [0.50, 1.38] 0.72 [0.36, 1.42] 0.99 [0.45, 2.17] 1.31 [1.01, 1.70] Subtotals only 1.10 [0.97, 1.24] 1.22 [0.68, 2.17] 0.91 [0.64, 1.29] 0.96 [0.76, 1.22] 1.14 [0.79, 1.63] 0.99 [0.86, 1.15] 1.02 [0.78, 1.32] 1.03 [0.68, 1.55] 1.85 [1.55, 2.20] Subtotals only 1.09 [0.87, 1.36] 1.28 [1.11, 1.47]
2136 11282
96
Comparison 11. Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Early menses 4.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Delay in menses 5.1 > 3 days 5.2 > 5 days 5.3 > 7 days
No. of studies 13 0 0 0 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 1 4
No. of participants 3123 0 0 0 1465 418 418 418 418 418 418 418 178 617 1945 816 92 1037
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.72 [0.41, 1.27] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.79 [1.39, 2.31] Subtotals only 0.92 [0.44, 1.91] 0.20 [0.01, 4.10] 0.40 [0.08, 2.02] 0.74 [0.17, 3.28] 1.49 [0.54, 4.10] 2.97 [0.12, 72.53] 2.10 [0.93, 4.77] 1.8 [0.63, 5.16] 1.35 [0.82, 2.20] 1.32 [1.12, 1.56] 1.00 [0.75, 1.34] 1.04 [0.45, 2.39] 1.57 [1.26, 1.94]
Comparison 12. Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Diarrhoea
No. of studies 5 1 0 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1
No. of participants 1726 1102 0 1102 512 90 0 90 0 90 1210 0 90
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.52 [0.23, 1.17] 0.99 [0.29, 3.41] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.99 [0.29, 3.41] 13.04 [5.13, 33.15] Subtotals only 1.67 [0.42, 6.56] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 5.0 [0.25, 101.31] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.5 [0.26, 8.55] 1.25 [1.00, 1.56] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.5 [0.26, 8.55]
97
4.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
2 4 0 4
1224 1574 0 1574
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
2.36 [1.89, 2.95] 1.98 [1.66, 2.37] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.98 [1.66, 2.37]
Comparison 13. Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Diarrhoea 4.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
No. of studies 9 0 0 0 5 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 8 2 8
No. of participants 3009 0 0 0 1310 90 0 90 0 90 90 0 90 1509 3144 290 2854
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.93 [0.50, 1.72] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 2.64 [1.57, 4.43] Subtotals only 1.25 [0.36, 4.35] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 2.0 [0.19, 21.28] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.0 [0.21, 4.69] 2.0 [0.19, 21.28] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.0 [0.21, 4.69] 1.32 [1.12, 1.56] 1.56 [1.37, 1.78] 10.0 [1.30, 76.66] 1.53 [1.34, 1.75]
Comparison 14. Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 3.1 within 24 h
No. of studies 3 1 1 1 1 1
No. of participants 2144 800 322 478 958 269
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.14 [0.05, 0.41] 0.10 [0.01, 1.90] 0.10 [0.01, 1.90] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.19 [0.06, 0.59] 0.14 [0.01, 2.72]
98
3.2 25-48 h 3.3 49-72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Abdominal pain 6.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.9 Hot ushes 6.10 Lethargy 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 3
429 260 958 1693 2186 2186 2186 1800 1000 1000 1000 0 1000 1000 0 1924
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.15 [0.02, 1.18] 0.24 [0.05, 1.16] 0.11 [0.03, 0.49] 0.83 [0.77, 0.88] Subtotals only 0.63 [0.53, 0.76] 0.12 [0.07, 0.20] 0.86 [0.54, 1.39] 0.75 [0.61, 0.91] 0.58 [0.42, 0.80] 0.81 [0.68, 0.95] 0.76 [0.61, 0.95] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.58 [0.40, 0.83] 0.75 [0.59, 0.95] Subtotals only 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 2.83 [2.30, 3.47]
Comparison 15. Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Any side effect 3 Specic side effect 3.1 Nausea 3.2 Vomiting 3.3 Breast tenderness 3.4 Others 4 Menses 4.1 Delay
No. of studies 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.10 [0.02, 0.55] 0.35 [0.13, 0.95] Subtotals only 1.22 [0.92, 1.61] 0.82 [0.25, 2.63] 0.85 [0.56, 1.29] 2.94 [0.31, 28.01] 2.39 [0.56, 10.27] 2.39 [0.56, 10.27]
Comparison 16. Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk-status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women
No. of studies 7 0 0 0
No. of participants 1035 0 0 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.26 [0.11, 0.63] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
99
3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Delay
4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 4
746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 667 667
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
0.62 [0.43, 0.91] Subtotals only 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.82 [0.69, 4.77] 1.14 [0.78, 1.68] 1.14 [0.78, 1.68]
Comparison 17. Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Diarrhoea 4.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Delay in menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
No. of studies 5 0 0 0 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 3 0 3
No. of participants 3038 0 0 0 442 2387 2387 2387 2387 2387 2387 2387 0 3038 2781 0 2781
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 1.32 [0.73, 2.41] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.83 [0.49, 1.41] Subtotals only 0.53 [0.44, 0.65] 0.26 [0.14, 0.50] 0.93 [0.65, 1.32] 0.81 [0.53, 1.25] 0.77 [0.54, 1.10] 0.66 [0.49, 0.89] 1.18 [0.83, 1.67] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.80 [1.33, 2.43] 0.79 [0.65, 0.97] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.79 [0.65, 0.97]
100
Comparison 18. Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 2.1 Within 72 h 2.2 Later than 72 h 3 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 3.1 High-risk women 3.2 Low-risk women 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Menses 6.1 Early 6.2 Delay
No. of studies 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2
No. of participants 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 299 100 199
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 3.0 [0.32, 28.36] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.75 [0.33, 1.70] 0.95 [0.63, 1.43] 1.5 [0.26, 8.60] 0.91 [0.60, 1.39]
Comparison 19. Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effect 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 7 Menses
No. of studies 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of participants 400 0 400 198 202 0 0 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 396 396
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 3.0 [0.31, 28.60] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 2.33 [0.35, 15.56] 0.98 [0.06, 15.45] 5.10 [0.25, 104.90] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 0.74 [0.38, 1.43] 2.0 [0.18, 21.88] 0.5 [0.05, 5.47] 3.0 [0.12, 73.20] 5.0 [0.24, 103.49] 1.17 [0.40, 3.41] 3.0 [0.31, 28.60] 3.0 [0.12, 73.20] 0.71 [0.35, 1.44] 5.56 [1.25, 24.74] 1.79 [0.93, 3.43]
101
7.1 Delay
396
1.79 [0.93, 3.43]
Comparison 20. Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk) 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse) 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effect 6.1 Nausea 6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 7 Menses
No. of studies 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
No. of participants 599 0 0 0 0 599 599 599 599 599 599 599 599 599 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 3.49 [0.73, 16.65] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 0.86 [0.48, 1.56] 0.50 [0.05, 5.47] 0.20 [0.01, 4.13] 0.50 [0.05, 5.47] 0.50 [0.09, 2.70] 1.00 [0.06, 15.86] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93] 0.25 [0.03, 2.22] 0.61 [0.35, 1.06] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Comparison 21. Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse) 3.1 Within 72 h 3.2 Later than 72 h 4 Need for extra dose 5 Any side effect 6 Specic side effects 6.1 Nausea
No. of studies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
No. of participants 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 1.51 [0.06, 36.67] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 16.59 [1.01, 273.52] Subtotals only 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
102
6.2 Vomiting 6.3 Breast tenderness 6.4 Headache 6.5 Dizziness 6.6 Fatigue 6.7 Lower abdominal pain 6.8 Diarrhoea 6.9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 6.10 Heavy menses 7 Menses 7.1 Early 7.2 Delay
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 285 0 0 0 284 0 284
0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.01 [8.27, 0.22] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 4.27 [1.56, 11.69] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 4.27 [1.56, 11.69]
Comparison 22. Mifepristone versus gestrinone
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Side effects 2.1 Nausea 2.2 Vomiting 2.3 Diarrhoea 2.4 Fatigue 2.5 Dizziness 2.6 Headache 2.7 Breast tenderness 2.8 Lower abdominal pain 2.9 Bleeding or spotting 3 Menses 3.1 Early 3.2 Delay
No. of studies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of participants 996 8964 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 996 1950 975 975
Effect size 0.75 [0.32, 1.76] 1.08 [0.88, 1.33] 1.34 [0.90, 2.00] 1.0 [0.06, 15.94] 0.25 [0.03, 2.23] 2.0 [0.91, 4.41] 1.63 [0.68, 3.89] 0.67 [0.19, 2.35] 0.57 [0.17, 1.94] 0.89 [0.35, 2.29] 0.94 [0.70, 1.26] 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] 0.37 [0.20, 0.69] 1.37 [1.03, 1.82]
Comparison 23. Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Any side effect 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
No. of studies 0 0 0 0 2
No. of participants 0 0 0 0 485
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.78 [0.61, 5.22]
103
4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
538 538 384 0 0 0 0 0 384 0 384
Subtotals only 0.38 [0.30, 0.47] 0.13 [0.06, 0.27] 1.14 [0.75, 1.72] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.53 [0.74, 3.18] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 1.53 [0.74, 3.18]
Comparison 24. High-dose oestrogens versus Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status) 2.1 High-risk women 2.2 Low-risk women 3 Any side effect 4 Specic side effects 4.1 Nausea 4.2 Vomiting 4.3 Breast tenderness 4.4 Headache 4.5 Dizziness 4.6 Fatigue 4.7 Abdominal pain 4.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 5 Menses 5.1 Early 5.2 Delay
No. of studies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No. of participants 384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 2.17 [0.20, 23.77] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] Subtotals only 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
104
Comparison 25. Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women) 2 Any side effect 3 Specic side effects 3.1 Nausea 3.2 Vomiting 3.3 Breast tenderness 3.4 Headache 3.5 Dizziness 3.6 Fatigue 3.7 Abdominal pain 3.8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment 4 Delay in menses 4.1 Early 4.2 Delay
No. of studies 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
No. of participants 1323 1288 1288 1275 0 1288 1288 0 1288 0 0 0 0
Effect size 1.41 [0.76, 2.61] 0.85 [0.77, 0.93] Subtotals only 0.86 [0.77, 0.97] 0.50 [0.36, 0.69] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.92 [0.68, 1.24] 0.66 [0.40, 1.07] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.77 [0.43, 1.37] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Comparison 26. High-risk women versus low-risk women (all hormonal methods)
Outcome or subgroup title 1 Observed number of pregnancies
No. of studies 11
No. of participants 19700
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 2.67 [2.11, 3.39]
Comparison 27. Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone
Outcome or subgroup title 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 1.01 [0.29, 3.54] 0.44 [0.13, 1.51] 0.43 [0.13, 1.42] 0.59 [0.20, 1.71]
105
Comparison 28. Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel
Effect size 0.93 [0.50, 1.73] 0.60 [0.31, 1.19] 0.54 [0.27, 1.11] 0.51 [0.31, 0.84]
Comparison 29. Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate
Effect size 0.42 [0.16, 1.12] 0.84 [0.24, 2.95] 2.29 [0.77, 6.82] 4.66 [0.28, 77.39]
Comparison 30. Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe
Outcome or subgroup title 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h
No. of studies 3 2 2
No. of participants 1527 863 857
Statistical method Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size 0.47 [0.26, 0.88] 0.41 [0.18, 0.89] 0.71 [0.35, 1.41]
106
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies.
Review: Interventions for emergency contraception
Comparison: 1 Intrauterine contraceptive device versus control Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 22/100
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Weight
Askalani 1987
4/200
100.0 %
0.09 [ 0.03, 0.26 ]
Total (95% CI)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
200
100
100.0 %
0.09 [ 0.03, 0.26 ]
Total events: 4 (Treatment), 22 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 4.53 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.001 0.01 0.1 Favours treatment
10 100 1000 Favours control
107
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 5/60 15/424 1/100 14/553 31/979
Weight
Farajkhoda 2009 Ho 1993 Sheng SY 2008 Sun MX 2007 (1) WHO 1998
0/62 12/410 1/100 11/557 11/976
8.4 % 22.2 % 1.5 % 21.2 % 46.7 %
0.09 [ 0.00, 1.56 ] 0.83 [ 0.39, 1.75 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 0.78 [ 0.36, 1.70 ] 0.36 [ 0.18, 0.70 ]
Total (95% CI)
2105
2116
100.0 %
0.54 [ 0.36, 0.80 ]
Total events: 35 (Treatment), 66 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 5.27, df = 4 (P = 0.26); I2 =24% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.02 (P = 0.0025) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(1) In the paper of Sun MY 2007 and Sheng SY, Yuzpe was replaced by LNG -COC 4 tablets (total EE 0.12mg and LNG 0.6MG) two-dose 12hr apart orally.
108
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Ho 1993 WHO 1998 4/79 6/372 6/77 19/360 13.2 % 41.9 % 0.65 [ 0.19, 2.21 ] 0.31 [ 0.12, 0.76 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
451
437
55.1 %
0.39 [ 0.19, 0.80 ]
Total events: 10 (Treatment), 25 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.95, df = 1 (P = 0.33); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.58 (P = 0.010) 2 Low-risk women Ho 1993 WHO 1998 8/331 5/602 9/341 12/619 19.2 % 25.7 % 0.92 [ 0.36, 2.34 ] 0.43 [ 0.15, 1.21 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
933
960
44.9 %
0.64 [ 0.32, 1.26 ]
Total events: 13 (Treatment), 21 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.13, df = 1 (P = 0.29); I2 =12% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.29 (P = 0.20)
Total (95% CI)
1384
1397
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.31, 0.82 ]
Total events: 23 (Treatment), 46 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.99, df = 3 (P = 0.39); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.76 (P = 0.0058) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 0.96, df = 1 (P = 0.33), I2 =0.0%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
109
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Within 24 h Ho 1993 WHO 1998 4/217 2/450 3/217 9/459 7.6 % 22.5 % 1.33 [ 0.30, 5.89 ] 0.23 [ 0.05, 1.04 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 6 (Treatment), 12 (Control)
667
676
30.1 %
0.51 [ 0.19, 1.34 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.70, df = 1 (P = 0.10); I2 =63% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.37 (P = 0.17) 2 25-48 h Ho 1993 WHO 1998 4/114 4/338 6/130 15/370 14.2 % 36.2 % 0.76 [ 0.22, 2.63 ] 0.29 [ 0.10, 0.87 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

452
500
50.3 %
0.42 [ 0.19, 0.94 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.30, df = 1 (P = 0.25); I2 =23% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.10 (P = 0.036) 3 49-72 h WHO 1998 5/187 7/150 19.6 % 0.57 [ 0.19, 1.77 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 5 (Treatment), 7 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable
187
150
19.6 %
0.57 [ 0.19, 1.77 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.97 (P = 0.33) 4 Later than 72 h
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Total (95% CI)
1306
1326
100.0 %
0.48 [ 0.28, 0.82 ]
Total events: 19 (Treatment), 40 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 4.17, df = 4 (P = 0.38); I2 =4% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.67 (P = 0.0076) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 0.20, df = 2 (P = 0.91), I2 =0.0%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
110
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Need for extra dose.
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 4 Need for extra dose
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 89/979
Weight
WHO 1998
47/976
100.0 %
0.53 [ 0.38, 0.75 ]
Total (95% CI)

976
979
100.0 %
0.53 [ 0.38, 0.75 ]
Total events: 47 (Treatment), 89 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 3.64 (P = 0.00027) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 667/979
Weight
WHO 1998
534/976
100.0 %
0.80 [ 0.75, 0.86 ]
Total (95% CI)

976
979
100.0 %
0.80 [ 0.75, 0.86 ]
Total events: 534 (Treatment), 667 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 6.02 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
111
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Farajkhoda 2009 Ho 1993 Sheng SY 2008 Sun MX 2007 WHO 1998 4/62 66/410 15/100 100/557 226/976 41/60 197/424 33/100 227/553 494/979 4.2 % 19.6 % 3.3 % 23.0 % 49.9 % 0.09 [ 0.04, 0.25 ] 0.35 [ 0.27, 0.44 ] 0.45 [ 0.26, 0.78 ] 0.44 [ 0.36, 0.54 ] 0.46 [ 0.40, 0.52 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2105
2116
100.0 %
0.42 [ 0.38, 0.46 ]
Total events: 411 (Treatment), 992 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 13.77, df = 4 (P = 0.01); I2 =71% Test for overall effect: Z = 17.56 (P < 0.00001) 2 Vomiting Farajkhoda 2009 Ho 1993 Sheng SY 2008 WHO 1998 0/62 11/410 3/100 55/976 15/60 95/424 5/100 184/979 5.3 % 31.4 % 1.7 % 61.7 % 0.03 [ 0.00, 0.51 ] 0.12 [ 0.07, 0.22 ] 0.60 [ 0.15, 2.44 ] 0.30 [ 0.22, 0.40 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1548
1563
100.0 %
0.23 [ 0.18, 0.30 ]
Total events: 69 (Treatment), 299 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 11.21, df = 3 (P = 0.01); I2 =73% Test for overall effect: Z = 11.30 (P < 0.00001) 3 Breast tenderness Ho 1993 WHO 1998 65/410 105/976 88/424 118/979 42.3 % 57.7 % 0.76 [ 0.57, 1.02 ] 0.89 [ 0.70, 1.14 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1386
1403
100.0 %
0.84 [ 0.69, 1.01 ]
Total events: 170 (Treatment), 206 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.64, df = 1 (P = 0.42); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.84 (P = 0.066) 4 Headache Farajkhoda 2009 WHO 1998 0/62 164/976 13/60 198/979 6.5 % 93.5 % 0.04 [ 0.00, 0.59 ] 0.83 [ 0.69, 1.00 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1038
1039
100.0 %
0.78 [ 0.65, 0.94 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
112
(. . .
Continued)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 5.09, df = 1 (P = 0.02); I2 =80% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.65 (P = 0.0081) 5 Dizziness Ho 1993 WHO 1998 76/410 109/976 98/424 163/979 37.2 % 62.8 % 0.80 [ 0.61, 1.05 ] 0.67 [ 0.54, 0.84 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1386
1403
100.0 %
0.72 [ 0.61, 0.85 ]
Total events: 185 (Treatment), 261 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.01, df = 1 (P = 0.32); I2 =1% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.74 (P = 0.00018) 6 Fatigue Farajkhoda 2009 Ho 1993 Sheng SY 2008 Sun MX 2007 WHO 1998 1/62 98/410 9/100 39/557 165/976 10/60 156/424 12/100 45/553 279/979 2.0 % 30.7 % 2.4 % 9.0 % 55.8 % 0.10 [ 0.01, 0.73 ] 0.65 [ 0.52, 0.80 ] 0.75 [ 0.33, 1.70 ] 0.86 [ 0.57, 1.30 ] 0.59 [ 0.50, 0.70 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2105
2116
100.0 %
0.63 [ 0.55, 0.71 ]
Total events: 312 (Treatment), 502 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.22, df = 4 (P = 0.18); I2 =36% Test for overall effect: Z = 7.28 (P < 0.00001) 7 Abdominal pain WHO 1998 172/976 205/979 100.0 % 0.84 [ 0.70, 1.01 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

976
979
100.0 %
0.84 [ 0.70, 1.01 ]
Total events: 172 (Treatment), 205 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.85 (P = 0.064) 8 Hot ushes Farajkhoda 2009 2/62 4/60 100.0 % 0.48 [ 0.09, 2.54 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 2 (Treatment), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.86 (P = 0.39) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Ho 1993 Sun MX 2007
62
60
100.0 %
0.48 [ 0.09, 2.54 ]
12/410 61/557
12/424 73/553
13.9 % 86.1 %
1.03 [ 0.47, 2.28 ] 0.83 [ 0.60, 1.14 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
967
977
100.0 %
0.86 [ 0.64, 1.15 ]
Total events: 73 (Treatment), 85 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.26, df = 1 (P = 0.61); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.02 (P = 0.31)
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
113
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe, Outcome 7 Menses.

Comparison: 2 Levonorgestrel versus Yuzpe Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Sheng SY 2008 Sun MX 2007 14/100 76/557 10/100 68/553 5.5 % 37.8 % 1.40 [ 0.65, 3.00 ] 1.11 [ 0.82, 1.51 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
657
653
43.3 %
1.15 [ 0.86, 1.52 ]
Total events: 90 (Treatment), 78 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.31, df = 1 (P = 0.58); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) 2 Delay Ho 1993 Sheng SY 2008 Sun MX 2007 49/331 10/100 66/557 40/347 8/100 55/553 21.6 % 4.4 % 30.6 % 1.28 [ 0.87, 1.90 ] 1.25 [ 0.51, 3.04 ] 1.19 [ 0.85, 1.67 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
988
1000
56.7 %
1.23 [ 0.96, 1.57 ]
Total (95% CI)
1645
1653
100.0 %
1.19 [ 0.99, 1.44 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
114
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 20/1022
Weight
Ngai 2005
20/1038
100.0 %
0.98 [ 0.53, 1.82 ]
Total (95% CI)

1038
1022
100.0 %
0.98 [ 0.53, 1.82 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
115
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status).
Comparison: 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Ngai 2005 4/225 10/221 49.9 % 0.39 [ 0.13, 1.23 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

225
221
49.9 %
0.39 [ 0.13, 1.23 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.60 (P = 0.11) 2 Low-risk women Ngai 2005 16/792 10/774 50.1 % 1.56 [ 0.71, 3.42 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

792
774
50.1 %
1.56 [ 0.71, 3.42 ]
Total events: 16 (Treatment), 10 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.12 (P = 0.26)
Total (95% CI)
1017
995
100.0 %
0.98 [ 0.53, 1.81 ]
Total events: 20 (Treatment), 20 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.82, df = 1 (P = 0.05); I2 =74% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.07 (P = 0.95) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 3.81, df = 1 (P = 0.05), I2 =74%
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
116
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Ngai 2005 82/1044 84/1027 100.0 % 0.96 [ 0.72, 1.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
0.96 [ 0.72, 1.29 ]
Total events: 82 (Treatment), 84 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.27 (P = 0.79) 2 Vomiting Ngai 2005 11/1044 13/1027 100.0 % 0.83 [ 0.37, 1.85 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.37, 1.85 ]
Total events: 11 (Treatment), 13 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.45 (P = 0.65) 3 Breast tenderness Ngai 2005 35/1044 57/1027 100.0 % 0.60 [ 0.40, 0.91 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
0.60 [ 0.40, 0.91 ]
Total events: 35 (Treatment), 57 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.40 (P = 0.016) 4 Headache Ngai 2005 39/1044 43/1027 100.0 % 0.89 [ 0.58, 1.36 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
0.89 [ 0.58, 1.36 ]
Total events: 39 (Treatment), 43 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.53 (P = 0.60) 5 Dizziness Ngai 2005 66/1044 53/1027 100.0 % 1.23 [ 0.86, 1.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
1.23 [ 0.86, 1.74 ]
Total events: 66 (Treatment), 53 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.13 (P = 0.26) 6 Fatigue
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
117
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 7 Lower abdominal pain Ngai 2005 50/1044 65/1027 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
Continued) Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.76 [ 0.53, 1.08 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1044
1027
100.0 %
0.76 [ 0.53, 1.08 ]
Total events: 50 (Treatment), 65 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.52 (P = 0.13) 8 Diarrhoea
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 10 Heavy menses
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
118
Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 3 Levonorgestrel split-dose 24 hours versus 12 hours Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Ngai 2005
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
41/1000
51/978
100.0 %
0.79 [ 0.53, 1.17 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1000
978
100.0 %
0.79 [ 0.53, 1.17 ]
Total (95% CI)

1000
978
100.0 %
0.79 [ 0.53, 1.17 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
119
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 7/545 8/1409 24/1356
Weight
Arowojolu 2002 Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002
4/573 9/1414 20/1356
18.3 % 20.4 % 61.2 %
0.54 [ 0.16, 1.85 ] 1.12 [ 0.43, 2.90 ] 0.83 [ 0.46, 1.50 ]
Total (95% CI)
3343
3310
100.0 %
0.84 [ 0.53, 1.33 ]
Total events: 33 (Treatment), 39 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.84, df = 2 (P = 0.66); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.75 (P = 0.46) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
120
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status).
Comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Von Hertzen 2002 7/404 12/388 50.7 % 0.56 [ 0.22, 1.41 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

404
388
50.7 %
0.56 [ 0.22, 1.41 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.23 (P = 0.22) 2 Low-risk women Von Hertzen 2002 13/952 12/968 49.3 % 1.10 [ 0.51, 2.40 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

952
968
49.3 %
1.10 [ 0.51, 2.40 ]
Total (95% CI)
1356
1356
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.46, 1.49 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
121
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Within 72 h Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 5/1257 16/1198 4/1235 20/1183 13.1 % 65.3 % 1.23 [ 0.33, 4.56 ] 0.79 [ 0.41, 1.52 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2455
2418
78.4 %
0.86 [ 0.48, 1.54 ]
Total events: 21 (Treatment), 24 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.35, df = 1 (P = 0.56); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.50 (P = 0.62) 2 Later than 72 h Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 4/143 4/150 3/159 4/164 9.2 % 12.4 % 1.48 [ 0.34, 6.51 ] 1.09 [ 0.28, 4.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

293
323
21.6 %
1.26 [ 0.46, 3.43 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.09, df = 1 (P = 0.77); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.45 (P = 0.65)
Total (95% CI)
2748
2741
100.0 %
0.95 [ 0.57, 1.57 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
122
Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Arowojolu 2002 Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 132/544 328/1510 189/1359 129/518 332/1512 199/1361 19.9 % 50.1 % 30.0 % 0.97 [ 0.79, 1.20 ] 0.99 [ 0.86, 1.13 ] 0.95 [ 0.79, 1.14 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
3413
3391
100.0 %
0.97 [ 0.88, 1.07 ]
Total events: 649 (Treatment), 660 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.11, df = 2 (P = 0.94); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.52 (P = 0.61) 2 Vomiting Arowojolu 2002 Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 42/544 137/1510 19/1359 44/518 132/1512 19/1361 23.0 % 67.3 % 9.7 % 0.91 [ 0.61, 1.36 ] 1.04 [ 0.83, 1.31 ] 1.00 [ 0.53, 1.88 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
3413
3391
100.0 %
1.01 [ 0.83, 1.22 ]
Total events: 198 (Treatment), 195 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.32, df = 2 (P = 0.85); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.06 (P = 0.95) 3 Breast tenderness Arowojolu 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 70/544 113/1359 46/518 115/1361 29.1 % 70.9 % 1.45 [ 1.02, 2.06 ] 0.98 [ 0.77, 1.26 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1903
1879
100.0 %
1.12 [ 0.91, 1.37 ]
Total events: 183 (Treatment), 161 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.10, df = 1 (P = 0.08); I2 =68% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.09 (P = 0.27) 4 Headache Arowojolu 2002 Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 116/544 181/1510 142/1359 75/518 175/1512 130/1361 20.1 % 45.8 % 34.0 % 1.47 [ 1.13, 1.92 ] 1.04 [ 0.85, 1.26 ] 1.09 [ 0.87, 1.37 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
3413
3391
100.0 %
1.14 [ 1.01, 1.30 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
123
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 5 Dizziness Arowojolu 2002 Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 69/544 130/1510 113/1359 72/518 153/1512 115/1361 21.6 % 44.8 % 33.6 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
Continued)
0.91 [ 0.67, 1.24 ] 0.85 [ 0.68, 1.06 ] 0.98 [ 0.77, 1.26 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
3413
3391
100.0 %
0.91 [ 0.79, 1.05 ]
Total events: 312 (Treatment), 340 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.73, df = 2 (P = 0.69); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.28 (P = 0.20) 6 Fatigue Dada 2010 Von Hertzen 2002 189/1510 184/1359 188/1512 182/1361 50.8 % 49.2 % 1.01 [ 0.83, 1.22 ] 1.01 [ 0.84, 1.23 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2869
2873
100.0 %
1.01 [ 0.88, 1.15 ]
Total events: 373 (Treatment), 370 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.00, df = 1 (P = 0.97); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.14 (P = 0.89) 7 Lower abdominal pain Arowojolu 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 85/544 183/1359 95/518 198/1361 33.0 % 67.0 % 0.85 [ 0.65, 1.11 ] 0.93 [ 0.77, 1.12 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1903
1879
100.0 %
0.90 [ 0.77, 1.05 ]
Total events: 268 (Treatment), 293 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.25, df = 1 (P = 0.62); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.33 (P = 0.18) 8 Diarrhoea Von Hertzen 2002 53/1359 44/1361 100.0 % 1.21 [ 0.81, 1.79 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1359
1361
100.0 %
1.21 [ 0.81, 1.79 ]
Total events: 53 (Treatment), 44 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.94 (P = 0.35) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Von Hertzen 2002 426/1359 426/1361 100.0 % 1.00 [ 0.90, 1.12 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1359
1361
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.90, 1.12 ]
Total events: 426 (Treatment), 426 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.03 (P = 0.98) 10 Heavy menses Arowojolu 2002 84/544 54/518 100.0 % 1.48 [ 1.08, 2.04 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

544
518
100.0 %
1.48 [ 1.08, 2.04 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
124
Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 4 Levonorgestrel single dose versus split-dose Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Arowojolu 2002 114/573 163/545 53.4 % 0.67 [ 0.54, 0.82 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

573
545
53.4 %
0.67 [ 0.54, 0.82 ]
Total events: 114 (Treatment), 163 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 3.83 (P = 0.00013) 2 Delay Arowojolu 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 114/573 62/1334 81/545 63/1332 26.5 % 20.1 % 1.34 [ 1.03, 1.74 ] 0.98 [ 0.70, 1.38 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1907
1877
46.6 %
1.18 [ 0.96, 1.46 ]
Total (95% CI)
2480
2422
100.0 %
0.91 [ 0.78, 1.05 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
125
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 3/136 9/83 2/206 5/144 4/120 4/111 2/102 4/197 1/100 2/140 9/138 2/45 5/89 2/100 8/30 2/63 3/127 4/197 2/86 1/205
Weight
Chen 2008 Cheng 2009 Gan XH 2007 Han 1999a Hu X 2003 Li A 2000 Li J 2005 Liang 2001 Liao 2003 Liu RQ 2009 Qi M 2003 Shao XY 2010 Su 2001 Sun 2000 Sun P 2003 Wang Q 2000 Wang Y 2003 Xu 2000 Xu Z 2000 Zhang JQ 2000
2/129 12/83 2/250 1/70 2/120 3/116 1/100 2/198 1/100 3/140 2/150 1/57 2/64 1/100 2/30 1/68 2/132 2/198 2/94 4/394
4.0 % 12.4 % 3.0 % 4.5 % 5.5 % 5.6 % 2.7 % 5.5 % 1.4 % 2.7 % 12.9 % 3.1 % 5.7 % 2.7 % 11.0 % 2.9 % 4.2 % 5.5 % 2.9 % 1.8 %
0.70 [ 0.12, 4.14 ] 1.33 [ 0.59, 2.99 ] 0.82 [ 0.12, 5.80 ] 0.41 [ 0.05, 3.46 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.72 [ 0.16, 3.13 ] 0.51 [ 0.05, 5.54 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 1.50 [ 0.25, 8.84 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.93 ] 0.39 [ 0.04, 4.22 ] 0.56 [ 0.11, 2.78 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.25 [ 0.06, 1.08 ] 0.46 [ 0.04, 4.98 ] 0.64 [ 0.11, 3.78 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.91 [ 0.13, 6.35 ] 2.08 [ 0.23, 18.50 ]
Total (95% CI)
2593
2419
100.0 %
0.64 [ 0.45, 0.92 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
126
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Zhang JQ 2000 2/49 1/28 65.8 % 1.14 [ 0.11, 12.05 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 2 (Treatment), 1 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.11 (P = 0.91) 2 Low-risk women Zhang JQ 2000
49
28
65.8 %
1.14 [ 0.11, 12.05 ]
2/345
0/177
34.2 %
2.57 [ 0.12, 53.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

345
177
34.2 %
2.57 [ 0.12, 53.29 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.61 (P = 0.54)
Total (95% CI)

394
205
100.0 %
1.63 [ 0.26, 10.24 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.17, df = 1 (P = 0.68); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.52 (P = 0.60) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 0.17, df = 1 (P = 0.68), I2 =0.0%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
127
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/1 53/136 30/206 32/144 13/120 47/115 20/100 19/138 43/100 56/127 21/197 6/86 13/205
Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI
Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 0.28 [ 0.16, 0.48 ] 0.88 [ 0.55, 1.40 ] 1.09 [ 0.65, 1.83 ] 0.77 [ 0.35, 1.69 ] 0.82 [ 0.59, 1.15 ] 0.90 [ 0.51, 1.60 ] 0.39 [ 0.18, 0.86 ] 0.26 [ 0.14, 0.47 ] 0.24 [ 0.14, 0.41 ] 0.76 [ 0.41, 1.41 ] 0.30 [ 0.06, 1.47 ] 1.08 [ 0.57, 2.05 ]
Arowojolu 2002 Chen 2008 Gan XH 2007 Han 1999a Hu X 2003 Li A 2000 Liao 2003 Qi M 2003 Sun 2000 Wang Y 2003 Xu 2000 Xu Z 2000 Zhang JQ 2000
0/1 14/129 32/250 17/70 10/120 40/119 18/100 8/150 11/100 14/132 16/198 2/94 27/394
Total (95% CI)
1857
1675
0.58 [ 0.41, 0.82 ]
Total events: 209 (Treatment), 353 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.27; Chi2 = 46.73, df = 11 (P<0.00001); I2 =76% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.07 (P = 0.0022) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
128
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 6 Specic side effect.
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 6 Specic side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Liao 2003 Liu RQ 2009 Shao XY 2010 Wang Q 2000 5/100 6/140 4/57 9/68 8/100 8/140 4/45 8/63 27.8 % 27.8 % 15.5 % 28.9 % 0.63 [ 0.21, 1.84 ] 0.75 [ 0.27, 2.11 ] 0.79 [ 0.21, 2.98 ] 1.04 [ 0.43, 2.53 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
365
348
100.0 %
0.81 [ 0.48, 1.36 ]
Total events: 24 (Treatment), 28 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.55, df = 3 (P = 0.91); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.81 (P = 0.42) 2 Vomiting
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness Liao 2003 Liu RQ 2009 Shao XY 2010 Wang Q 2000
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
8/100 10/140 4/57 3/68
6/100 14/140 5/45 2/63
21.7 % 50.6 % 20.2 % 7.5 %
1.33 [ 0.48, 3.70 ] 0.71 [ 0.33, 1.55 ] 0.63 [ 0.18, 2.22 ] 1.39 [ 0.24, 8.05 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
365
348
100.0 %
0.88 [ 0.52, 1.49 ]
Total events: 25 (Treatment), 27 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.44, df = 3 (P = 0.70); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.47 (P = 0.64) 4 Headache Wang Q 2000 5/68 7/63 100.0 % 0.66 [ 0.22, 1.98 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 5 (Treatment), 7 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.74 (P = 0.46) 5 Dizziness Liao 2003
68
63
100.0 %
0.66 [ 0.22, 1.98 ]
2/100
1/100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
18.3 %
2.00 [ 0.18, 21.71 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
129
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Shao XY 2010 3/57 Control n/N 4/45 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 81.7 % Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.59 [ 0.14, 2.51 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

157
145
100.0 %
0.85 [ 0.26, 2.80 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.74, df = 1 (P = 0.39); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.27 (P = 0.79) 6 Fatigue
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 7 Abdominal pain Liao 2003
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
3/100
7/100
100.0 %
0.43 [ 0.11, 1.61 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

100
100
100.0 %
0.43 [ 0.11, 1.61 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.25 (P = 0.21) 8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Gan XH 2007 Li A 2000 Liao 2003 Qi M 2003 Shao XY 2010 4/248 10/116 2/100 7/150 3/56 3/204 15/111 4/100 4/138 11/43 8.4 % 39.1 % 10.2 % 10.6 % 31.7 % 1.10 [ 0.25, 4.84 ] 0.64 [ 0.30, 1.36 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.67 ] 1.61 [ 0.48, 5.38 ] 0.21 [ 0.06, 0.70 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
670
596
100.0 %
0.63 [ 0.39, 1.02 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
130
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Chen 2008 Gan XH 2007 Shao XY 2010 8/118 14/248 6/56 7/125 20/204 5/43 3.7 % 11.8 % 3.0 % 1.21 [ 0.45, 3.23 ] 0.58 [ 0.30, 1.11 ] 0.92 [ 0.30, 2.82 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
422
372
18.5 %
0.76 [ 0.47, 1.23 ]
Total events: 28 (Treatment), 32 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.66, df = 2 (P = 0.44); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.12 (P = 0.26) 2 Delay Chen 2008 Cheng 2009 Gan XH 2007 Han 1999a Hu X 2003 Li A 2000 Li J 2005 Liao 2003 Shao XY 2010 Sun P 2003 Wang Q 2000 Zhang JQ 2000 13/118 12/71 40/248 3/70 8/118 23/116 11/100 17/100 15/56 6/28 13/68 52/394 1/125 6/74 22/204 8/144 7/116 12/115 20/102 12/100 10/43 3/22 6/63 33/204 0.5 % 3.2 % 13.0 % 2.8 % 3.8 % 6.5 % 10.7 % 6.5 % 6.1 % 1.8 % 3.4 % 23.4 % 13.77 [ 1.83, 103.64 ] 2.08 [ 0.83, 5.25 ] 1.50 [ 0.92, 2.43 ] 0.77 [ 0.21, 2.82 ] 1.12 [ 0.42, 3.00 ] 1.90 [ 0.99, 3.63 ] 0.56 [ 0.28, 1.11 ] 1.42 [ 0.71, 2.81 ] 1.15 [ 0.58, 2.31 ] 1.57 [ 0.44, 5.59 ] 2.01 [ 0.81, 4.96 ] 0.82 [ 0.55, 1.22 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1487
1312
81.5 %
1.26 [ 1.03, 1.54 ]
Total (95% CI)
1909
1684
100.0 %
1.17 [ 0.97, 1.40 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
131
Analysis 5.8. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife).
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 5/144 4/120 4/115 2/100 7/200 1/100 9/138 5/89 2/100 8/30 2/63 4/128 4/197 2/86 1/205
Weight
Han 1999a Hu X 2003 Li A 2000 Li J 2005 Liang 2001 Liao 2003 Qi M 2003 Su 2001 Sun 2000 Sun P 2003 Wang Q 2000 Wang Y 2003 Xu 2000 Xu Z 2000 Zhang JQ 2000
1/70 2/120 3/119 1/102 4/200 1/100 2/150 2/64 1/100 2/30 1/68 2/134 2/198 2/94 4/394
5.6 % 6.8 % 7.0 % 3.5 % 12.0 % 1.7 % 16.0 % 7.2 % 3.4 % 13.7 % 3.5 % 7.0 % 6.9 % 3.6 % 2.2 %
0.41 [ 0.05, 3.46 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.72 [ 0.17, 3.17 ] 0.49 [ 0.05, 5.32 ] 0.57 [ 0.17, 1.92 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.93 ] 0.56 [ 0.11, 2.78 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.25 [ 0.06, 1.08 ] 0.46 [ 0.04, 4.98 ] 0.48 [ 0.09, 2.56 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.91 [ 0.13, 6.35 ] 2.08 [ 0.23, 18.50 ]
Total (95% CI)
1943
1815
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.32, 0.77 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
132
Analysis 5.9. Comparison 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife).
Comparison: 5 Mifepristone mid-dose (25-50 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 5/144 4/120 4/115 2/100 4/200 1/100 9/138 5/89 2/100 8/30 2/63 3/128 4/197 2/86 1/205
Weight
Han 1999a Hu X 2003 Li A 2000 Li J 2005 Liang 2001 Liao 2003 Qi M 2003 Su 2001 Sun 2000 Sun P 2003 Wang Q 2000 Wang Y 2003 Xu 2000 Xu Z 2000 Zhang JQ 2000
1/70 2/120 3/119 1/102 4/200 1/100 2/150 2/64 1/100 2/30 1/68 4/134 2/198 2/94 4/394
6.0 % 7.3 % 7.5 % 3.7 % 7.3 % 1.8 % 17.2 % 7.7 % 3.7 % 14.7 % 3.8 % 5.6 % 7.4 % 3.8 % 2.4 %
0.41 [ 0.05, 3.46 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.72 [ 0.17, 3.17 ] 0.49 [ 0.05, 5.32 ] 1.00 [ 0.25, 3.94 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.93 ] 0.56 [ 0.11, 2.78 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.25 [ 0.06, 1.08 ] 0.46 [ 0.04, 4.98 ] 1.27 [ 0.29, 5.58 ] 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.68 ] 0.91 [ 0.13, 6.35 ] 2.08 [ 0.23, 18.50 ]
Total (95% CI)
1943
1815
100.0 %
0.57 [ 0.37, 0.88 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
133
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 1/50 1/100 20/858 3/135 0/60 2/48 2/100 2/100 44/2712 1/50 20/643
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 8.09 ] 0.65 [ 0.32, 1.30 ] 0.75 [ 0.13, 4.41 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 0.20 [ 0.01, 4.06 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.95 [ 0.57, 1.60 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 0.46 [ 0.21, 1.00 ]
Bu 2006 Dong 2009 Hamoda 2004 Li W 2002 Lin 2000 Liu 2000 Pei 2001 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 Wang C 2000 Wu 1999a
1/50 0/100 13/860 2/120 0/60 0/48 1/100 1/100 21/1359 1/50 9/633
Total (95% CI)

3480
4856
0.70 [ 0.50, 0.97 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.73, df = 9 (P = 0.93); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.11 (P = 0.035) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
134
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Von Hertzen 2002 14/443 19/792 45.8 % 1.32 [ 0.67, 2.60 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

443
792
45.8 %
1.32 [ 0.67, 2.60 ]
Total events: 14 (Treatment), 19 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.79 (P = 0.43) 2 Low-risk women Von Hertzen 2002 7/916 25/1920 54.2 % 0.59 [ 0.25, 1.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

916
1920
54.2 %
0.59 [ 0.25, 1.35 ]
Total (95% CI)
1359
2712
100.0 %
0.92 [ 0.55, 1.55 ]
135
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Within 72 h Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 12/991 18/1215 19/966 36/2381 39.4 % 49.8 % 0.62 [ 0.30, 1.26 ] 0.98 [ 0.56, 1.72 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2206
3347
89.2 %
0.82 [ 0.53, 1.27 ]
Total events: 30 (Treatment), 55 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.00, df = 1 (P = 0.32); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.89 (P = 0.37) 2 Later than 72 h Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 1/30 3/137 0/40 8/314 0.9 % 9.9 % 3.97 [ 0.17, 94.13 ] 0.86 [ 0.23, 3.19 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

167
354
10.8 %
1.11 [ 0.35, 3.57 ]
Total (95% CI)
2373
3701
100.0 %
0.85 [ 0.56, 1.28 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
136
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 52/135 42/100
Weight
Li W 2002 Pei 2001
13/120 8/100
53.8 % 46.2 %
0.28 [ 0.16, 0.49 ] 0.19 [ 0.09, 0.38 ]
Total (95% CI)
220
235
100.0 %
0.24 [ 0.15, 0.37 ]
Total events: 21 (Treatment), 94 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.73, df = 1 (P = 0.39); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 6.44 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
137
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 6 Specic side effect.
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 6 Specic side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Bu 2006 Hamoda 2004 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 2/50 93/364 8/100 196/1364 7/633 3/50 107/360 10/100 388/2720 7/643 0.5 % 29.8 % 2.1 % 66.0 % 1.5 % 0.67 [ 0.12, 3.82 ] 0.86 [ 0.68, 1.09 ] 0.80 [ 0.33, 1.94 ] 1.01 [ 0.86, 1.18 ] 1.02 [ 0.36, 2.88 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2511
3873
100.0 %
0.95 [ 0.84, 1.09 ]
Total events: 306 (Treatment), 515 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 1.53, df = 4 (P = 0.82); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.71 (P = 0.48) 2 Vomiting Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 8/364 12/1364 27/633 5/361 38/2720 14/643 25.1 % 37.3 % 37.6 % 1.59 [ 0.52, 4.80 ] 0.63 [ 0.33, 1.20 ] 1.96 [ 1.04, 3.70 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2361
3724
100.0 %
1.22 [ 0.55, 2.68 ]
Total events: 47 (Treatment), 57 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.33; Chi2 = 6.36, df = 2 (P = 0.04); I2 =69% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.49 (P = 0.63) 3 Breast tenderness Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 88/364 114/1364 32/633 76/360 228/2720 36/643 34.3 % 54.0 % 11.7 % 1.15 [ 0.87, 1.50 ] 1.00 [ 0.80, 1.24 ] 0.90 [ 0.57, 1.44 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2361
3723
100.0 %
1.03 [ 0.88, 1.21 ]
Total events: 234 (Treatment), 340 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 0.99, df = 2 (P = 0.61); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.41 (P = 0.68) 4 Headache Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 85/364 140/1364 94/358 272/2720
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
36.8 % 43.6 %
0.89 [ 0.69, 1.15 ] 1.03 [ 0.85, 1.25 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
138
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Wu 1999a 43/633 Control n/N 27/643 Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI Weight
Continued) Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI
19.6 %
1.62 [ 1.01, 2.58 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2361
3721
100.0 %
1.06 [ 0.83, 1.37 ]
Total events: 268 (Treatment), 393 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.03; Chi2 = 4.86, df = 2 (P = 0.09); I2 =59% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.48 (P = 0.63) 5 Dizziness Bu 2006 Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 1/50 52/363 123/1364 58/633 1/50 64/358 258/2720 60/643 0.3 % 21.5 % 57.7 % 20.5 % 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 0.80 [ 0.57, 1.12 ] 0.95 [ 0.77, 1.17 ] 0.98 [ 0.70, 1.38 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2410
3771
100.0 %
0.92 [ 0.79, 1.08 ]
Total events: 234 (Treatment), 383 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 0.89, df = 3 (P = 0.83); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.01 (P = 0.31) 6 Fatigue Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 90/360 208/1364 23/633 97/357 366/2720 23/643 27.4 % 67.4 % 5.2 % 0.92 [ 0.72, 1.18 ] 1.13 [ 0.97, 1.33 ] 1.02 [ 0.58, 1.79 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2357
3720
100.0 %
1.06 [ 0.94, 1.21 ]
Total events: 321 (Treatment), 486 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 1.98, df = 2 (P = 0.37); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) 7 Low abdominal pain Bu 2006 Hamoda 2004 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 3/50 119/363 7/100 191/1364 4/50 139/358 6/100 381/2720 0.7 % 39.4 % 1.4 % 58.5 % 0.75 [ 0.18, 3.18 ] 0.84 [ 0.69, 1.03 ] 1.17 [ 0.41, 3.35 ] 1.00 [ 0.85, 1.17 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1877
3228
100.0 %
0.94 [ 0.83, 1.06 ]
Total events: 320 (Treatment), 530 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 1.99, df = 3 (P = 0.57); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.06 (P = 0.29) 8 Diarrhoea Bu 2006 Von Hertzen 2002 2/50 61/1364 1/50 97/2720 1.7 % 98.3 % 2.00 [ 0.19, 21.36 ] 1.25 [ 0.92, 1.72 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1414
2770
100.0 %
1.26 [ 0.93, 1.73 ]
Total events: 63 (Treatment), 98 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 0.15, df = 1 (P = 0.70); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.48 (P = 0.14)
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Bu 2006 Von Hertzen 2002 1/49 258/1364 2/49 832/2720 0.3 % 99.7 % Control n/N Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI Weight
0.50 [ 0.05, 5.34 ] 0.62 [ 0.55, 0.70 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1413
2769
100.0 %
0.62 [ 0.55, 0.70 ]
Total events: 259 (Treatment), 834 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 0.03, df = 1 (P = 0.86); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 7.64 (P < 0.00001) 10 Heavy menses
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 11 Hot ushes Hamoda 2004
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
49/364
52/359
100.0 %
0.93 [ 0.65, 1.33 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

364
359
100.0 %
0.93 [ 0.65, 1.33 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
140
Analysis 6.7. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Bu 2006 Hamoda 2004 4/49 59/622 9/49 144/664 2.4 % 36.5 % 0.44 [ 0.15, 1.35 ] 0.44 [ 0.33, 0.58 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
671
713
38.8 %
0.44 [ 0.33, 0.58 ]
Total events: 63 (Treatment), 153 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.00, df = 1 (P = 0.98); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 5.91 (P < 0.00001) 2 Delay Bu 2006 Hamoda 2004 Pei 2001 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 Wu 1999a 9/49 97/622 3/100 20/99 118/1327 117/633 5/49 54/664 7/100 22/98 125/2720 66/643 1.3 % 13.7 % 1.8 % 5.8 % 21.5 % 17.1 % 1.80 [ 0.65, 4.99 ] 1.92 [ 1.40, 2.63 ] 0.43 [ 0.11, 1.61 ] 0.90 [ 0.53, 1.54 ] 1.93 [ 1.52, 2.47 ] 1.80 [ 1.36, 2.39 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
2830
4274
61.2 %
1.75 [ 1.51, 2.03 ]
Total events: 364 (Treatment), 279 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 11.25, df = 5 (P = 0.05); I2 =56% Test for overall effect: Z = 7.37 (P < 0.00001)
Total (95% CI)
3501
4987
100.0 %
1.24 [ 1.09, 1.40 ]
Total events: 427 (Treatment), 432 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 86.96, df = 7 (P<0.00001); I2 =92% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.36 (P = 0.00077) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 75.89, df = 1 (P = 0.00), I2 =99%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
141
Analysis 6.8. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife).
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 8 ITT (all loss follow-up as pregnancy in LNG, and no preg in Mife)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 20/1021 3/135 0/60 2/50 2/100 2/100 48/2756 1/50 20/643
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.65 [ 0.32, 1.30 ] 0.75 [ 0.13, 4.41 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 1.00 [ 0.15, 6.82 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.43 ] 0.87 [ 0.53, 1.45 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 0.46 [ 0.21, 1.00 ]
Hamoda 2004 Li W 2002 Lin 2000 Liu 2000 Pei 2001 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 Wang C 2000 Wu 1999a
13/1022 2/120 0/60 2/50 1/100 1/100 21/1379 1/50 9/633
Total (95% CI)

3514
4915
0.70 [ 0.50, 0.98 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
142
Analysis 6.9. Comparison 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, Outcome 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife).
Comparison: 6 Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) versus Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg Outcome: 9 ITT (all loss follow-up as no pregnancy in LNG, and preg in Mife)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 183/1021 3/135 0/60 4/50 2/100 2/100 89/2756 1/50 20/643
Hamoda 2004 Li W 2002 Lin 2000 Liu 2000 Pei 2001 Sheng A 2002 Von Hertzen 2002 Wang C 2000 Wu 1999a
175/1022 2/120 0/60 2/50 1/100 1/100 41/1379 1/50 9/633
Total (95% CI)
3514
4915
0.90 [ 0.76, 1.05 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
143
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 13/774 25/958
Weight
Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010
7/775 15/941
34.4 % 65.6 %
0.54 [ 0.22, 1.34 ] 0.61 [ 0.32, 1.15 ]
Total (95% CI)
1716
1732
100.0 %
0.59 [ 0.35, 0.99 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
144
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status).
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancy (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 1/36 4/53 1/31 5/51 2.8 % 13.4 % 0.86 [ 0.06, 13.20 ] 0.77 [ 0.22, 2.71 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

89
82
16.3 %
0.79 [ 0.25, 2.46 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.01, df = 1 (P = 0.94); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.41 (P = 0.68) 2 Low-risk women Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 6/737 11/888 12/742 20/907 31.5 % 52.2 % 0.50 [ 0.19, 1.33 ] 0.56 [ 0.27, 1.17 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1625
1649
83.7 %
0.54 [ 0.30, 0.97 ]
Total (95% CI)
1714
1731
100.0 %
0.58 [ 0.35, 0.97 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
145
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancy (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Within 24 h Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 0/273 5/312 4/263 10/337 11.6 % 24.4 % 0.11 [ 0.01, 1.98 ] 0.54 [ 0.19, 1.56 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

585
600
36.1 %
0.40 [ 0.15, 1.05 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.09, df = 1 (P = 0.30); I2 =8% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.86 (P = 0.064) 2 24-48 h Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 6/268 7/328 3/298 7/319 7.2 % 18.0 % 2.22 [ 0.56, 8.80 ] 0.97 [ 0.35, 2.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
596
617
25.3 %
1.33 [ 0.59, 3.00 ]
Total events: 13 (Treatment), 10 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.89, df = 1 (P = 0.35); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.69 (P = 0.49) 3 > 48-72 h Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 1/234 3/203 6/213 5/196 16.0 % 12.9 % 0.15 [ 0.02, 1.25 ] 0.58 [ 0.14, 2.39 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

437
409
28.9 %
0.34 [ 0.11, 1.06 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.10, df = 1 (P = 0.29); I2 =9% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.85 (P = 0.064) 4 > 72-96 h Glasier 2010 0/63 2/73 5.9 % 0.23 [ 0.01, 4.73 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 2 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) 5 > 96-120 h Glasier 2010
63
73
5.9 %
0.23 [ 0.01, 4.73 ]
0/34
1/33
3.9 %
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.68 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

34
33
3.9 %
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.68 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
146
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.49) Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total (95% CI)
1715
1732
100.0 %
0.61 [ 0.37, 1.00 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 4 Observed number of pregnancy within 0-72 h.
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 4 Observed number of pregnancy within 0-72 h
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 13/774 22/852
Weight
7/775 15/844
37.3 % 62.7 %
0.54 [ 0.22, 1.34 ] 0.69 [ 0.36, 1.32 ]
Total (95% CI)
1619
1626
100.0 %
0.63 [ 0.37, 1.07 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours experimental
Favours control
147
Analysis 7.7. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 7 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 7 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 29/775 141/1104 24/774 126/1117 16.1 % 83.9 % 1.21 [ 0.71, 2.05 ] 1.13 [ 0.90, 1.42 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1879
1891
100.0 %
1.14 [ 0.93, 1.41 ]
Total events: 170 (Treatment), 150 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.05, df = 1 (P = 0.83); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.27 (P = 0.20) 2 Vomiting Creinin 2006 2/775 2/774 100.0 % 1.00 [ 0.14, 7.07 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 2 (Treatment), 2 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.00 (P = 1.0) 3 Breast tenderness Creinin 2006
775
774
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.14, 7.07 ]
16/775
15/774
100.0 %
1.07 [ 0.53, 2.14 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

775
774
100.0 %
1.07 [ 0.53, 2.14 ]
Total events: 16 (Treatment), 15 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.18 (P = 0.86) 4 Headache Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 29/775 213/1104 29/774 211/1117 12.2 % 87.8 % 1.00 [ 0.60, 1.65 ] 1.02 [ 0.86, 1.21 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1879
1891
100.0 %
1.02 [ 0.87, 1.20 ]
Total events: 242 (Treatment), 240 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.01, df = 1 (P = 0.93); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.22 (P = 0.82) 5 Dizziness Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 20/775 57/1104 18/774 55/1117 24.8 % 75.2 % 1.11 [ 0.59, 2.08 ] 1.05 [ 0.73, 1.50 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1879
1891
100.0 %
1.06 [ 0.78, 1.45 ]
Total events: 77 (Treatment), 73 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.02, df = 1 (P = 0.88); I2 =0.0%
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
148
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Test for overall effect: Z = 0.39 (P = 0.70) 6 Fatigue Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 37/775 61/1104 37/774 44/1117 45.8 % 54.2 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
1.00 [ 0.64, 1.56 ] 1.40 [ 0.96, 2.05 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1879
1891
100.0 %
1.22 [ 0.91, 1.62 ]
Total events: 98 (Treatment), 81 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.30, df = 1 (P = 0.25); I2 =23% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.34 (P = 0.18) 7 Lower abdominal pain Creinin 2006 31/775 27/774 100.0 % 1.15 [ 0.69, 1.90 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

775
774
100.0 %
1.15 [ 0.69, 1.90 ]
Total events: 31 (Treatment), 27 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.53 (P = 0.60) 8 Diarrhoea Creinin 2006 12/775 11/774 100.0 % 1.09 [ 0.48, 2.45 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

775
774
100.0 %
1.09 [ 0.48, 2.45 ]
Total events: 12 (Treatment), 11 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.21 (P = 0.84) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Creinin 2006 5/775 7/774 100.0 % 0.71 [ 0.23, 2.24 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

775
774
100.0 %
0.71 [ 0.23, 2.24 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.58 (P = 0.56) 10 Dysmenorrhoea Glasier 2010 142/1104 160/1117 100.0 % 0.90 [ 0.73, 1.11 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1104
1117
100.0 %
0.90 [ 0.73, 1.11 ]
Total events: 142 (Treatment), 160 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.00 (P = 0.32) 11 Abdominal pain Glasier 2010 56/1104 75/1117 100.0 % 0.76 [ 0.54, 1.06 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1104
1117
100.0 %
0.76 [ 0.54, 1.06 ]
Total events: 56 (Treatment), 75 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.64 (P = 0.10) 12 Upper abdominal pain Glasier 2010 37/1104 46/1117
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
100.0 %
0.81 [ 0.53, 1.24 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

1104
1117
100.0 %
0.81 [ 0.53, 1.24 ]
Total events: 37 (Treatment), 46 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) 13 Back pain Glasier 2010 35/1104 27/1117 100.0 % 1.31 [ 0.80, 2.15 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1104
1117
100.0 %
1.31 [ 0.80, 2.15 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 7.8. Comparison 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel, Outcome 8 Menses.
Comparison: 7 Ulipristal acetate (all doses) versus Levonorgestrel Outcome: 8 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 132/775 67/1013 271/774 191/1031 39.5 % 27.6 % 0.49 [ 0.41, 0.58 ] 0.36 [ 0.27, 0.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1788
1805
67.1 %
0.43 [ 0.37, 0.50 ]
Total events: 199 (Treatment), 462 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.60, df = 1 (P = 0.06); I2 =72% Test for overall effect: Z = 10.87 (P < 0.00001) 2 Delay Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 194/775 177/1013 124/774 103/1031
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
18.1 % 14.9 %
1.56 [ 1.28, 1.91 ] 1.75 [ 1.39, 2.19 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
150
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)
1788
1805
32.9 %
1.65 [ 1.42, 1.92 ]
Total events: 371 (Treatment), 227 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.53, df = 1 (P = 0.47); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 6.47 (P < 0.00001)
Total (95% CI)
3576
3610
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.75, 0.92 ]
Total events: 570 (Treatment), 689 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 151.00, df = 3 (P<0.00001); I2 =98% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.55 (P = 0.00039) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 150.39, df = 1 (P = 0.00), I2 =99%
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 3/86
Weight
Xu Z 2000
2/86
100.0 %
0.67 [ 0.11, 3.89 ]
Total (95% CI)

86
86
100.0 %
0.67 [ 0.11, 3.89 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
151
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 8 Levonorgestrel (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 8/86
Weight
Xu Z 2000
6/86
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.27, 2.07 ]
Total (95% CI)

86
86
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.27, 2.07 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 1/100 2/100
Weight
Lan XL 2006 Zhang Y 1998
1/100 1/92
34.3 % 65.7 %
1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 0.54 [ 0.05, 5.89 ]
Total (95% CI)
192
200
100.0 %
0.70 [ 0.12, 4.17 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
152
Analysis 9.6. Comparison 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg), Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 9 mifepristone low dose (10 mg) versus low dose (5 mg) Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Lan XL 2006 3/100 0/100 100.0 % 7.00 [ 0.37, 133.78 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

100
100
100.0 %
7.00 [ 0.37, 133.78 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.29 (P = 0.20) 2 Vomiting
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness Lan XL 2006
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
1/100
0/100
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.12, 72.77 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

100
100
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.12, 72.77 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.68 (P = 0.50) 4 Headache
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 5 Dizziness
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 6 Fatigue
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
153
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 7 Lower abdominal pain Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 8 Diarrhoea
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
154
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 8/140 1/32 5/201 1/74 1/90 1/39 0/50 2/149 12/545 17/599 1/50 1/98 6/600 1/100 1/50 0/50 1/100 7/565 17/1516 7/60 1/60 3/192 0/45 1/90 3/321
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.12 [ 0.03, 0.57 ] 1.07 [ 0.07, 16.30 ] 0.29 [ 0.07, 1.22 ] 0.96 [ 0.06, 15.08 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.74 ] 0.25 [ 0.01, 5.90 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 1.15 [ 0.16, 8.02 ] 0.39 [ 0.14, 1.11 ] 0.59 [ 0.27, 1.27 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 7.99 ] 0.98 [ 0.06, 15.45 ] 1.00 [ 0.32, 3.08 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 3.00 [ 0.13, 71.92 ] 2.00 [ 0.18, 21.71 ] 0.86 [ 0.29, 2.56 ] 1.00 [ 0.51, 1.95 ] 1.14 [ 0.44, 2.95 ] 1.50 [ 0.10, 23.30 ] 0.65 [ 0.07, 6.13 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.74 ] 1.26 [ 0.28, 5.60 ]
Cao 1999 Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Ding 2005 Du 2002 Fan 2001 Han L 2001 Lai Z 2004 Qi 2000b Sang 1999 Tan L 2003 Wang J 2006 Wang L 2004 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 Wei H 2011 Wei RH 2002 WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 Xie HH 2010 Zeng MY 2008 Zhang Y 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zhao J 2003 Zuo 1999
2/283 1/30 3/410 1/77 1/90 0/53 0/50 2/130 5/579 10/599 0/50 1/100 6/600 1/100 1/50 1/50 2/100 6/560 17/1514 8/60 1/40 1/99 0/45 1/90 4/339
10 100 1000 Favors control
(Continued . . . )
155
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total (95% CI)
6098
5816
0.73 [ 0.55, 0.97 ]
10 100 1000 Favors control
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg) Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women Cheng 1999a WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 1/17 1/11 11/740 4/8 2/16 11/752 17.9 % 5.4 % 35.9 % 0.12 [ 0.02, 0.89 ] 0.73 [ 0.07, 7.07 ] 1.02 [ 0.44, 2.33 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
768
776
59.2 %
0.72 [ 0.36, 1.42 ]
Total events: 13 (Treatment), 17 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.74, df = 2 (P = 0.15); I2 =47% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) 2 Low-risk women Cheng 1999a WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 2/391 5/549 6/752 1/191 5/549 6/739 4.4 % 16.5 % 19.9 % 0.98 [ 0.09, 10.71 ] 1.00 [ 0.29, 3.43 ] 0.98 [ 0.32, 3.03 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1692
1479
40.8 %
0.99 [ 0.45, 2.17 ]
(Continued . . . )
156
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.00, df = 2 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.03 (P = 0.98) Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Total (95% CI)
2460
2255
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.50, 1.38 ]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/140 34/201 12/74 12/90 3/50 3/50 11/100 9/60 3/60 0/192
0.01 0.1
Weight
Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI 17.38 [ 1.05, 286.86 ] 1.15 [ 0.80, 1.65 ] 1.12 [ 0.56, 2.26 ] 1.33 [ 0.67, 2.66 ] 2.00 [ 0.53, 7.56 ] 1.33 [ 0.31, 5.65 ] 0.91 [ 0.40, 2.04 ] 1.22 [ 0.55, 2.73 ] 2.00 [ 0.47, 8.46 ] 28.95 [ 1.67, 501.74 ]
Cao 1999 Cheng 1999a Ding 2005 Du 2002 Tan L 2003 Wei H 2011 Wei RH 2002 Xie HH 2010 Zeng MY 2008 Zhang Y 1998
17/283 81/418 14/77 16/90 6/50 4/50 10/100 11/60 4/40 7/99
0.9 % 33.5 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 3.7 % 3.2 % 9.4 % 9.5 % 3.2 % 0.8 %
1 10 100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
157
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Zhao J 2003 16/90 Control n/N 10/90 Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI Weight
11.2 %
1.60 [ 0.77, 3.33 ]
Total (95% CI)
1357
1107
100.0 %
1.31 [ 1.01, 1.70 ]
Total events: 186 (Treatment), 97 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.02; Chi2 = 11.04, df = 10 (P = 0.35); I2 =9% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.01 (P = 0.045) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
1 Nausea Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Fan 2001 Lai Z 2004 Qi 2000b Sang 1999 Wang J 2006 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 Xiao 2002 4/30 27/418 2/53 13/130 126/579 72/599 7/100 7/100 3/50 171/1516 2/32 12/203 2/39 9/149 106/545 96/599 6/98 5/100 2/50 149/1517
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2.13 [ 0.42, 10.81 ] 1.09 [ 0.57, 2.11 ] 0.74 [ 0.11, 5.00 ] 1.66 [ 0.73, 3.75 ] 1.12 [ 0.89, 1.41 ] 0.75 [ 0.56, 1.00 ] 1.14 [ 0.40, 3.28 ] 1.40 [ 0.46, 4.26 ] 1.50 [ 0.26, 8.60 ] 1.15 [ 0.93, 1.41 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
158
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Zhang Y 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zuo 1999 7/99 4/45 17/339 Control n/N 0/192 3/45 11/321 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 28.95 [ 1.67, 501.74 ] 1.33 [ 0.32, 5.62 ] 1.46 [ 0.70, 3.08 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

4058
3890
1.10 [ 0.97, 1.24 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 14.91, df = 12 (P = 0.25); I2 =20% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.44 (P = 0.15) 2 Vomiting Cheng 1999a Lai Z 2004 Sang 1999 Xiao 2002 Zhang Y 1998 Zuo 1999 2/418 2/130 8/599 12/1516 0/99 0/339 3/203 0/149 4/599 8/1517 0/192 3/321 0.32 [ 0.05, 1.92 ] 5.73 [ 0.28, 118.18 ] 2.00 [ 0.61, 6.61 ] 1.50 [ 0.62, 3.66 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.61 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

3101
2981
1.22 [ 0.68, 2.17 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.12, df = 4 (P = 0.19); I2 =35% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.66 (P = 0.51) 3 Breast tenderness Cheng 1999a Lai Z 2004 Sang 1999 Wang J 2006 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 Xiao 2002 Zhang Y 1998 Zhang Y 2002 7/418 1/130 25/599 2/100 2/100 1/50 20/1516 0/99 1/45 2/203 3/149 33/599 1/98 1/100 1/50 21/1517 0/192 0/45 1.70 [ 0.36, 8.11 ] 0.38 [ 0.04, 3.63 ] 0.76 [ 0.46, 1.26 ] 1.96 [ 0.18, 21.27 ] 2.00 [ 0.18, 21.71 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.55 ] 0.95 [ 0.52, 1.75 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 3.00 [ 0.13, 71.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

3057
2953
0.91 [ 0.64, 1.29 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.07, df = 7 (P = 0.88); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.54 (P = 0.59) 4 Headache Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Qi 2000b 4/30 7/418 64/579 3/32 2/203 68/545
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1.42 [ 0.35, 5.83 ] 1.70 [ 0.36, 8.11 ] 0.89 [ 0.64, 1.22 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Sang 1999 Xiao 2002 Zhang Y 1998 15/599 39/1516 0/99 Control n/N 21/599 33/1517 0/192 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.71 [ 0.37, 1.37 ] 1.18 [ 0.75, 1.87 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

3241
3088
0.96 [ 0.76, 1.22 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.64, df = 4 (P = 0.62); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75) 5 Dizziness Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Fan 2001 Sang 1999 Wang J 2006 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 Zhang Y 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zuo 1999 2/30 15/418 0/53 29/599 5/100 6/100 2/50 0/99 3/45 3/339 1/32 9/203 1/39 24/599 4/98 4/100 1/50 0/192 2/45 3/321 2.13 [ 0.20, 22.33 ] 0.81 [ 0.36, 1.82 ] 0.25 [ 0.01, 5.90 ] 1.21 [ 0.71, 2.05 ] 1.23 [ 0.34, 4.43 ] 1.50 [ 0.44, 5.15 ] 2.00 [ 0.19, 21.36 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ] 0.95 [ 0.19, 4.66 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1833
1679
1.14 [ 0.79, 1.63 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.47, df = 8 (P = 0.96); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.49) 6 Fatigue Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Fan 2001 Lai Z 2004 Qi 2000b Sang 1999 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 Zhang Y 1998 5/30 1/418 1/53 7/130 46/579 36/599 2/100 2/50 115/557 92/1516 0/99 4/32 7/203 0/39 5/149 41/545 32/599 1/100 2/50 110/562 105/1517 0/192
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1.33 [ 0.39, 4.50 ] 0.07 [ 0.01, 0.56 ] 2.22 [ 0.09, 53.14 ] 1.60 [ 0.52, 4.93 ] 1.06 [ 0.70, 1.58 ] 1.13 [ 0.71, 1.79 ] 2.00 [ 0.18, 21.71 ] 1.00 [ 0.15, 6.82 ] 1.05 [ 0.84, 1.33 ] 0.88 [ 0.67, 1.15 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
160
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Zhang Y 2002 1/45 Control n/N 0/45 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 3.00 [ 0.13, 71.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

4176
4033
0.99 [ 0.86, 1.15 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 9.65, df = 10 (P = 0.47); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.11 (P = 0.91) 7 Abdominal pain Cheng 1999a Fan 2001 Qi 2000b Xiao 2002 25/418 3/53 20/579 70/1516 9/203 4/39 24/545 65/1517 1.35 [ 0.64, 2.84 ] 0.55 [ 0.13, 2.33 ] 0.78 [ 0.44, 1.40 ] 1.08 [ 0.77, 1.50 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

2566
2304
1.02 [ 0.78, 1.32 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.13, df = 3 (P = 0.55); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.13 (P = 0.90) 8 Diarrhoea Chen 2009 Lai Z 2004 Qi 2000b Wang J 2006 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 Xiao 2002 Zhang Y 2002 Zuo 1999 4/30 1/130 14/579 4/100 6/100 3/50 9/1516 3/45 1/339 2/32 2/149 17/545 3/98 4/100 2/50 8/1517 2/45 3/321 2.13 [ 0.42, 10.81 ] 0.57 [ 0.05, 6.25 ] 0.78 [ 0.39, 1.56 ] 1.31 [ 0.30, 5.69 ] 1.50 [ 0.44, 5.15 ] 1.50 [ 0.26, 8.60 ] 1.13 [ 0.44, 2.91 ] 1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ] 0.32 [ 0.03, 3.02 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

2889
2857
1.03 [ 0.68, 1.55 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.54, df = 8 (P = 0.90); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.14 (P = 0.89) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Lai Z 2004 Sang 1999 Tan L 2003 Wang L 2004 Wang SZ 2001 1/29 38/418 24/130 55/599 2/50 24/600 1/100 1/31 14/203 1/149 40/599 1/50 12/600 1/100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1.07 [ 0.07, 16.31 ] 1.32 [ 0.73, 2.38 ] 27.51 [ 3.77, 200.53 ] 1.38 [ 0.93, 2.03 ] 2.00 [ 0.19, 21.36 ] 2.00 [ 1.01, 3.96 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.77 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Wang ZW 2008 Wei H 2011 WHO 1999 Zeng MY 2008 1/49 7/49 172/560 2/39 Control n/N 1/49 3/50 86/565 9/59 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.54 ] 2.38 [ 0.65, 8.68 ] 2.02 [ 1.60, 2.54 ] 0.34 [ 0.08, 1.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

2623
2455
1.85 [ 1.55, 2.20 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 16.96, df = 10 (P = 0.08); I2 =41% Test for overall effect: Z = 6.96 (P < 0.00001)
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg), Outcome 5 Menses.
Comparison: 10 Mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) versus mifepristone low-doses (< 25 mg) Outcome: 5 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Lai Z 2004 Wang J 2006 Wang L 2004 Wang ZW 2008 Xie HH 2010 Zhang Y 2002 Zhao J 2003 12/130 2/100 102/594 1/49 15/52 0/45 5/89 9/149 1/98 96/594 1/49 15/53 1/45 4/89 7.0 % 0.9 % 74.8 % 0.6 % 13.2 % 0.5 % 2.9 % 1.53 [ 0.67, 3.51 ] 1.96 [ 0.18, 21.27 ] 1.06 [ 0.82, 1.37 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.54 ] 1.02 [ 0.56, 1.87 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 7.97 ] 1.25 [ 0.35, 4.50 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1059
1077
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
100.0 %
1.09 [ 0.87, 1.36 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
162
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Total events: 137 (Treatment), 127 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 1.54, df = 6 (P = 0.96); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.75 (P = 0.45) 2 Delay Cao 1999 Chen 2009 Cheng 1999a Du 2002 Han L 2001 Lai Z 2004 Qi 2000b Sang 1999 Tan L 2003 Wang J 2006 Wang L 2004 Wang SZ 2001 Wang ZW 2008 WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 Xie HH 2010 Zeng MY 2008 Zhang Y 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zhao J 2003 Zuo 1999 81/283 29/29 111/418 22/89 22/50 23/130 34/579 72/599 8/50 12/100 102/594 12/100 6/49 128/550 137/1497 7/52 4/40 7/99 10/45 9/89 71/339 34/132 30/31 50/203 19/89 18/50 15/149 11/545 36/599 6/50 8/98 72/594 9/100 5/49 97/553 149/1499 8/53 8/60 11/192 5/45 8/89 45/321 7.1 % 11.8 % 8.1 % 4.3 % 5.0 % 3.7 % 3.2 % 6.4 % 1.7 % 2.2 % 8.3 % 2.4 % 1.4 % 9.1 % 9.4 % 1.9 % 1.4 % 2.0 % 1.7 % 2.0 % 7.1 % Control n/N Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI Weight
1.11 [ 0.79, 1.57 ] 1.03 [ 0.94, 1.13 ] 1.08 [ 0.81, 1.44 ] 1.16 [ 0.68, 1.98 ] 1.22 [ 0.75, 1.98 ] 1.76 [ 0.96, 3.22 ] 2.91 [ 1.49, 5.68 ] 2.00 [ 1.36, 2.94 ] 1.33 [ 0.50, 3.56 ] 1.47 [ 0.63, 3.44 ] 1.42 [ 1.07, 1.87 ] 1.33 [ 0.59, 3.02 ] 1.20 [ 0.39, 3.67 ] 1.33 [ 1.05, 1.68 ] 0.92 [ 0.74, 1.15 ] 0.89 [ 0.35, 2.28 ] 0.75 [ 0.24, 2.33 ] 1.23 [ 0.49, 3.08 ] 2.00 [ 0.74, 5.39 ] 1.13 [ 0.45, 2.78 ] 1.49 [ 1.06, 2.10 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
5781
5501
100.0 %
1.28 [ 1.11, 1.47 ]
Total events: 907 (Treatment), 644 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.04; Chi2 = 45.59, df = 20 (P = 0.00092); I2 =56% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.42 (P = 0.00063)
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
163
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/136 4/148 1/214 1/100 1/99 2/78 1/30 2/136 0/62 5/200 1/52 3/182 1/90
Weight
Cao 1999 Chen 2002 Cheng 1999a Fang 2000 Han 1996 Li 2000 Li H 2000 Lou C 2002 Tan 1999 Xie 1998 Yang F 2003 Zhang JQ 2000 Zhao J 2003
0/147 2/154 2/214 0/100 0/100 0/79 0/30 1/147 2/83 8/200 0/40 1/212 1/90
9.3 % 14.6 % 3.6 % 5.4 % 5.4 % 9.0 % 5.4 % 7.5 % 2.0 % 17.9 % 4.7 % 11.6 % 3.6 %
0.19 [ 0.01, 3.82 ] 0.48 [ 0.09, 2.58 ] 2.00 [ 0.18, 21.89 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 8.09 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 8.01 ] 0.20 [ 0.01, 4.05 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 7.87 ] 0.46 [ 0.04, 5.04 ] 3.75 [ 0.18, 76.75 ] 1.60 [ 0.53, 4.81 ] 0.43 [ 0.02, 10.31 ] 0.29 [ 0.03, 2.73 ] 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.74 ]
Total (95% CI)
1596
1527
100.0 %
0.72 [ 0.41, 1.27 ]
164
Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 7/136 36/208 4/99 9/136 5/52 16/90
Weight
Cao 1999 Cheng 1999a Han 1996 Lou C 2002 Yang F 2003 Zhao J 2003
10/147 55/210 7/100 26/147 4/50 39/90
9.4 % 46.5 % 5.2 % 12.0 % 6.3 % 20.6 %
1.32 [ 0.52, 3.37 ] 1.51 [ 1.04, 2.20 ] 1.73 [ 0.52, 5.73 ] 2.67 [ 1.30, 5.50 ] 0.83 [ 0.24, 2.92 ] 2.44 [ 1.47, 4.03 ]
Total (95% CI)
744
721
100.0 %
1.79 [ 1.39, 2.31 ]
Total events: 141 (Treatment), 77 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 5.24, df = 5 (P = 0.39); I2 =5% Test for overall effect: Z = 4.54 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
165
Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Cheng 1999a 13/210 14/208 100.0 % 0.92 [ 0.44, 1.91 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
0.92 [ 0.44, 1.91 ]
Total events: 13 (Treatment), 14 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.22 (P = 0.82) 2 Vomiting Cheng 1999a 0/210 2/208 100.0 % 0.20 [ 0.01, 4.10 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
0.20 [ 0.01, 4.10 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.05 (P = 0.30) 3 Breast tenderness Cheng 1999a 2/210 5/208 100.0 % 0.40 [ 0.08, 2.02 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
0.40 [ 0.08, 2.02 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.11 (P = 0.27) 4 Headache Cheng 1999a 3/210 4/208 100.0 % 0.74 [ 0.17, 3.28 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
0.74 [ 0.17, 3.28 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.39 (P = 0.69) 5 Dizziness Cheng 1999a 9/210 6/208 100.0 % 1.49 [ 0.54, 4.10 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
1.49 [ 0.54, 4.10 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.76 (P = 0.44) 6 Fatigue Cheng 1999a 1/210 0/208 100.0 % 2.97 [ 0.12, 72.53 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
210
208
0.001 0.01 0.1 Favours treatment 1 10 100 1000 Favours control
100.0 %
2.97 [ 0.12, 72.53 ]
(Continued . . . )
166
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Total events: 1 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.67 (P = 0.50) 7 Abdominal pain Cheng 1999a 17/210 8/208 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
2.10 [ 0.93, 4.77 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

210
208
100.0 %
2.10 [ 0.93, 4.77 ]
Total events: 17 (Treatment), 8 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.78 (P = 0.075) 8 Early menses Zhao J 2003 9/89 5/89 100.0 % 1.80 [ 0.63, 5.16 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 9 (Treatment), 5 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.09 (P = 0.27) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Cheng 1999a Han 1996
89
89
100.0 %
1.80 [ 0.63, 5.16 ]
25/210 9/100
13/208 12/99
52.0 % 48.0 %
1.90 [ 1.00, 3.62 ] 0.74 [ 0.33, 1.68 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
310
307
100.0 %
1.35 [ 0.82, 2.20 ]
167
Analysis 11.5. Comparison 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg), Outcome 5 Delay in menses.
Comparison: 11 Mifepristone mid-dose (50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-dose (25 mg) Outcome: 5 Delay in menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 > 3 days Cheng 1999a Fang 2000 Han 1996 54/210 3/100 15/100 57/208 2/99 12/99 31.4 % 1.1 % 6.6 % 0.94 [ 0.68, 1.29 ] 1.49 [ 0.25, 8.70 ] 1.24 [ 0.61, 2.51 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
410
406
39.1 %
1.00 [ 0.75, 1.34 ]
Total events: 72 (Treatment), 71 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.70, df = 2 (P = 0.71); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.03 (P = 0.98) 2 > 5 days Yang F 2003 8/40 10/52 4.8 % 1.04 [ 0.45, 2.39 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 8 (Treatment), 10 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.09 (P = 0.93) 3 > 7 days Cao 1999 Chen 2002 Lou C 2002 Zhao J 2003
40
52
4.8 %
1.04 [ 0.45, 2.39 ]
43/147 30/152 53/146 39/89
38/136 21/144 31/134 9/89
21.6 % 11.8 % 17.7 % 4.9 %
1.05 [ 0.72, 1.51 ] 1.35 [ 0.81, 2.25 ] 1.57 [ 1.08, 2.29 ] 4.33 [ 2.23, 8.41 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
534
503
56.1 %
1.57 [ 1.26, 1.94 ]
Total (95% CI)
984
961
100.0 %
1.32 [ 1.12, 1.56 ]
168
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 8/140 1/74 1/50 7/565 0/45
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.07 [ 0.00, 1.18 ] 0.95 [ 0.06, 14.89 ] 0.33 [ 0.01, 7.99 ] 1.01 [ 0.36, 2.86 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Cao 1999 Ding 2005 Tan L 2003 WHO 1999 Zhang Y 2002
0/120 1/78 0/50 7/559 0/45
Total (95% CI)

852
874
0.52 [ 0.23, 1.17 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.77, df = 3 (P = 0.29); I2 =20% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.58 (P = 0.11) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
169
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg) Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 High-risk women
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Low-risk women WHO 1999
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
5/553
5/549
100.0 %
0.99 [ 0.29, 3.41 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

553
549
100.0 %
0.99 [ 0.29, 3.41 ]
Total (95% CI)

553
549
100.0 %
0.99 [ 0.29, 3.41 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.01 (P = 0.99) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
170
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/140 1/74 3/50
Weight
Cao 1999 Ding 2005 Tan L 2003
21/120 23/78 13/50
10.3 % 22.9 % 66.8 %
50.11 [ 3.07, 818.51 ] 21.82 [ 3.02, 157.52 ] 4.33 [ 1.31, 14.28 ]
Total (95% CI)
248
264
100.0 %
13.04 [ 5.13, 33.15 ]
171
Analysis 12.4. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Zhang Y 2002 5/45 3/45 100.0 % 1.67 [ 0.42, 6.56 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 5 (Treatment), 3 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.73 (P = 0.47) 2 Vomiting
45
45
100.0 %
1.67 [ 0.42, 6.56 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
2/45
0/45
100.0 %
5.00 [ 0.25, 101.31 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 2 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.05 (P = 0.29) 4 Headache
45
45
100.0 %
5.00 [ 0.25, 101.31 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 5 Dizziness Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
3/45
2/45
100.0 %
1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Treatment), 2 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.46 (P = 0.65) 6 Fatigue WHO 1999 Zhang Y 2002
45
45
100.0 %
1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ]
135/558 2/45
110/562 0/45
99.5 % 0.5 %
1.24 [ 0.99, 1.54 ] 5.00 [ 0.25, 101.31 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
603
607
100.0 %
1.25 [ 1.00, 1.56 ]
(Continued . . . )
172
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.83, df = 1 (P = 0.36); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.99 (P = 0.046) 7 Abdominal pain Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 8 Diarrhoea Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
3/45
2/45
100.0 %
1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Treatment), 2 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.46 (P = 0.65) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Tan L 2003 WHO 1999
45
45
100.0 %
1.50 [ 0.26, 8.55 ]
5/50 198/559
1/50 86/565
1.2 % 98.8 %
5.00 [ 0.61, 41.28 ] 2.33 [ 1.86, 2.91 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
609
615
100.0 %
2.36 [ 1.89, 2.95 ]
173
Analysis 12.5. Comparison 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg), Outcome 5 Menses.
Comparison: 12 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone low-dose (< 25 mg) Outcome: 5 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Cao 1999 Tan L 2003 WHO 1999 Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
41/120 14/50 196/559 20/45
34/140 6/50 97/565 5/45
22.6 % 4.3 % 69.5 % 3.6 %
1.41 [ 0.96, 2.06 ] 2.33 [ 0.98, 5.58 ] 2.04 [ 1.65, 2.53 ] 4.00 [ 1.64, 9.73 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
774
800
100.0 %
1.98 [ 1.66, 2.37 ]
Total (95% CI)
774
800
100.0 %
1.98 [ 1.66, 2.37 ]
174
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/283 1/77 1/60 1/166 0/50 6/560 13/400 0/45 2/100
Cao 1999 Ding 2005 Li H 2000 Qian 1999 Tan L 2003 WHO 1999 Xie 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zheng A 2005
0/120 1/78 0/30 1/86 0/50 7/559 5/200 0/45 2/100
Total (95% CI)
1268
1741
0.93 [ 0.50, 1.72 ]
175
Analysis 13.3. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 17/283 14/77 5/166 6/50 8/200
Weight
Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI 2.91 [ 1.59, 5.32 ] 1.62 [ 0.90, 2.91 ] 8.49 [ 3.33, 21.64 ] 2.17 [ 0.89, 5.25 ] 1.88 [ 0.81, 4.32 ]
Cao 1999 Ding 2005 Qian 1999 Tan L 2003 Xie 1998
21/120 23/78 22/86 13/50 15/200
23.8 % 24.2 % 16.3 % 17.3 % 18.3 %
Total (95% CI)
534
776
100.0 %
2.64 [ 1.57, 4.43 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
176
Analysis 13.4. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Zhang Y 2002 5/45 4/45 100.0 % 1.25 [ 0.36, 4.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 5 (Treatment), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.35 (P = 0.73) 2 Vomiting
45
45
100.0 %
1.25 [ 0.36, 4.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
2/45
1/45
100.0 %
2.00 [ 0.19, 21.28 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 2 (Treatment), 1 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 4 Headache
45
45
100.0 %
2.00 [ 0.19, 21.28 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 5 Dizziness Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
3/45
3/45
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.21, 4.69 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Treatment), 3 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P = 1.0) 6 Fatigue Zhang Y 2002
45
45
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.21, 4.69 ]
2/45
1/45
100.0 %
2.00 [ 0.19, 21.28 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

45
45
100.0 %
2.00 [ 0.19, 21.28 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
177
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 7 Abdominal pain Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 8 Diarrhoea Zhang Y 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
3/45
3/45
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.21, 4.69 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Treatment), 3 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P = 1.0) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Li H 2000 Tan L 2003 WHO 1999 Zheng A 2005
45
45
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.21, 4.69 ]
3/30 5/50 198/559 25/100
1/60 2/50 172/560 1/100
0.4 % 1.1 % 97.9 % 0.6 %
6.00 [ 0.65, 55.26 ] 2.50 [ 0.51, 12.29 ] 1.15 [ 0.98, 1.36 ] 25.00 [ 3.45, 180.97 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
739
770
100.0 %
1.32 [ 1.12, 1.56 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
178
Analysis 13.5. Comparison 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg), Outcome 5 Menses.
Comparison: 13 Mifepristone high-dose (> 50 mg) versus mifepristone mid-doses (25-50 mg) Outcome: 5 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
1 Early Zhang Y 2002 Zheng A 2005 0/45 10/100 0/45 1/100 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 10.00 [ 1.30, 76.66 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

145
145
10.00 [ 1.30, 76.66 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.0, df = 0 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.22 (P = 0.027) 2 Delay Cao 1999 Li H 2000 Qian 1999 Tan L 2003 WHO 1999 Xie 1998 Zhang Y 2002 Zheng A 2005 41/120 5/30 18/86 14/50 196/559 42/200 20/45 20/100 81/283 4/60 20/166 8/50 128/560 53/400 10/45 12/100 1.19 [ 0.88, 1.63 ] 2.50 [ 0.72, 8.64 ] 1.74 [ 0.97, 3.11 ] 1.75 [ 0.81, 3.80 ] 1.53 [ 1.27, 1.85 ] 1.58 [ 1.10, 2.29 ] 2.00 [ 1.06, 3.78 ] 1.67 [ 0.86, 3.22 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1190
1664
1.53 [ 1.34, 1.75 ]
Total (95% CI)
1335
1809
1.56 [ 1.37, 1.78 ]
Total events: 366 (Treatment), 317 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 7.52, df = 8 (P = 0.48); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 6.54 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 3.25, df = 1 (P = 0.07), I2 =69%
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
179
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 17/471 4/398 5/191
Weight
Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 Webb 1992
3/487 0/402 0/195
63.2 % 16.5 % 20.3 %
0.17 [ 0.05, 0.58 ] 0.11 [ 0.01, 2.04 ] 0.09 [ 0.00, 1.60 ]
Total (95% CI)
1084
1060
100.0 %
0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ]
180
Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status).
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 2 Observed number of pregnancies (by risk status)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
1 High-risk women Glasier 1992 0/167 4/155 0.10 [ 0.01, 1.90 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.53 (P = 0.13) 2 Low-risk women Glasier 1992
167
155
0.10 [ 0.01, 1.90 ]
0/235
0/243
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P < 0.00001)
235
243
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Total (95% CI)

402
398
0.10 [ 0.01, 1.90 ]
181
Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 within 24 h Ashok 2002 0/135 3/134 19.5 % 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.72 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

135
134
19.5 %
0.14 [ 0.01, 2.72 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.30 (P = 0.19) 2 25-48 h Ashok 2002 1/212 7/217 38.5 % 0.15 [ 0.02, 1.18 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

212
217
38.5 %
0.15 [ 0.02, 1.18 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.81 (P = 0.071) 3 49-72 h Ashok 2002 2/140 7/120 42.0 % 0.24 [ 0.05, 1.16 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

140
120
42.0 %
0.24 [ 0.05, 1.16 ]
Total (95% CI)

487
471
100.0 %
0.19 [ 0.06, 0.59 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
182
Analysis 14.4. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Need for extra dose.
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 4 Need for extra dose
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 17/471
Weight
Ashok 2002
2/487
100.0 %
0.11 [ 0.03, 0.49 ]
Total (95% CI)

487
471
100.0 %
0.11 [ 0.03, 0.49 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 14.5. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 321/500 301/346
Weight
Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992
299/500 215/347
51.6 % 48.4 %
0.93 [ 0.85, 1.03 ] 0.71 [ 0.65, 0.78 ]
Total (95% CI)
847
846
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.77, 0.88 ]
183
Analysis 14.6. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 Webb 1992 91/500 137/402 72/195 122/500 207/398 133/191 28.4 % 38.7 % 32.9 % 0.75 [ 0.59, 0.95 ] 0.66 [ 0.56, 0.77 ] 0.53 [ 0.43, 0.65 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1097
1089
100.0 %
0.63 [ 0.53, 0.76 ]
Total events: 300 (Treatment), 462 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.02; Chi2 = 4.87, df = 2 (P = 0.09); I2 =59% Test for overall effect: Z = 4.90 (P < 0.00001) 2 Vomiting Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 Webb 1992 3/500 9/402 5/195 46/500 59/398 42/191 18.2 % 51.9 % 29.9 % 0.07 [ 0.02, 0.21 ] 0.15 [ 0.08, 0.30 ] 0.12 [ 0.05, 0.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1097
1089
100.0 %
0.12 [ 0.07, 0.20 ]
Total events: 17 (Treatment), 147 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.0; Chi2 = 1.53, df = 2 (P = 0.47); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 8.39 (P < 0.00001) 3 Breast tenderness Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 Webb 1992 79/500 94/402 34/195 68/500 158/398 34/191 34.0 % 36.4 % 29.6 % 1.16 [ 0.86, 1.57 ] 0.59 [ 0.48, 0.73 ] 0.98 [ 0.64, 1.51 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1097
1089
100.0 %
0.86 [ 0.54, 1.39 ]
Total events: 207 (Treatment), 260 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.15; Chi2 = 14.52, df = 2 (P = 0.00070); I2 =86% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.61 (P = 0.54) 4 Headache Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 83/500 170/402 97/500 242/398 35.2 % 64.8 % 0.86 [ 0.66, 1.12 ] 0.70 [ 0.61, 0.80 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
902
898
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.61, 0.91 ]
Total events: 253 (Treatment), 339 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.01; Chi2 = 1.93, df = 1 (P = 0.16); I2 =48% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.86 (P = 0.0042)
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
184
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 5 Dizziness Ashok 2002 52/500 89/500 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI Weight
0.58 [ 0.42, 0.80 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

500
500
100.0 %
0.58 [ 0.42, 0.80 ]
Total events: 52 (Treatment), 89 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 3.30 (P = 0.00096) 6 Fatigue Ashok 2002 157/500 195/500 100.0 % 0.81 [ 0.68, 0.95 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

500
500
100.0 %
0.81 [ 0.68, 0.95 ]
Total events: 157 (Treatment), 195 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.50 (P = 0.012) 7 Abdominal pain Ashok 2002 105/500 138/500 100.0 % 0.76 [ 0.61, 0.95 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

500
500
100.0 %
0.76 [ 0.61, 0.95 ]
Total events: 105 (Treatment), 138 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.42 (P = 0.016) 8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 9 Hot ushes Ashok 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
41/500
71/500
100.0 %
0.58 [ 0.40, 0.83 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

500
500
100.0 %
0.58 [ 0.40, 0.83 ]
Total events: 41 (Treatment), 71 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.96 (P = 0.0031) 10 Lethargy Ashok 2002 91/500 122/500 100.0 % 0.75 [ 0.59, 0.95 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

500
500
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.59, 0.95 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
185
Analysis 14.7. Comparison 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 14 Mifepristone (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Ashok 2002 Glasier 1992 Webb 1992
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
93/380 137/402 73/195
47/358 45/398 12/191
45.8 % 42.8 % 11.5 %
1.86 [ 1.35, 2.57 ] 3.01 [ 2.22, 4.10 ] 5.96 [ 3.35, 10.61 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
977
947
100.0 %
2.83 [ 2.30, 3.47 ]
186
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 9/193 5/120
Weight
Webb 1992 Yang 2001
0/195 1/121
65.5 % 34.5 %
0.05 [ 0.00, 0.89 ] 0.20 [ 0.02, 1.67 ]
Total (95% CI)
316
313
100.0 %
0.10 [ 0.02, 0.55 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 2 Any side effect.
Comparison: 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses) Outcome: 2 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 14/120
Weight
Yang 2001
5/121
100.0 %
0.35 [ 0.13, 0.95 ]
Total (95% CI)

121
120
100.0 %
0.35 [ 0.13, 0.95 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
187
Analysis 15.3. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 3 Specic side effect.
Comparison: 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses) Outcome: 3 Specic side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Webb 1992 72/197 58/193 100.0 % 1.22 [ 0.92, 1.61 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

197
193
100.0 %
1.22 [ 0.92, 1.61 ]
Total events: 72 (Treatment), 58 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.35 (P = 0.18) 2 Vomiting Webb 1992 5/197 6/193 100.0 % 0.82 [ 0.25, 2.63 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

197
193
100.0 %
0.82 [ 0.25, 2.63 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.34 (P = 0.73) 3 Breast tenderness Webb 1992 34/197 39/193 100.0 % 0.85 [ 0.56, 1.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

197
193
100.0 %
0.85 [ 0.56, 1.29 ]
Total events: 34 (Treatment), 39 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.75 (P = 0.46) 4 Others Webb 1992 3/197 1/193 100.0 % 2.94 [ 0.31, 28.01 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

197
193
100.0 %
2.94 [ 0.31, 28.01 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
188
Analysis 15.4. Comparison 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses), Outcome 4 Menses.
Comparison: 15 Mifepristone (all doses) versus danazol (all doses) Outcome: 4 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Delay Webb 1992 Yang 2001 49/188 21/121 10/192 18/120 49.5 % 50.5 % 5.00 [ 2.61, 9.58 ] 1.16 [ 0.65, 2.06 ]
Total (95% CI)
309
312
100.0 %
2.39 [ 0.56, 10.27 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
189
Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/41 3/90 2/47 3/66 3/56 3/86 4/117
Weight
Chen 2001 Fu X 2000 Han 1995 Liu L 2001 Wang 1999 Xu Z 2000 Yang 2001
0/47 1/96 0/46 0/76 0/52 2/94 1/121
11.8 % 13.7 % 11.0 % 16.6 % 15.0 % 13.9 % 18.0 %
0.18 [ 0.01, 3.54 ] 0.31 [ 0.03, 2.95 ] 0.20 [ 0.01, 4.14 ] 0.12 [ 0.01, 2.36 ] 0.15 [ 0.01, 2.90 ] 0.61 [ 0.10, 3.56 ] 0.24 [ 0.03, 2.13 ]
Total (95% CI)
532
503
100.0 %
0.26 [ 0.11, 0.63 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 Favours Treatment
10 100 1000 Favours Control
190
Analysis 16.3. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 25/90 8/66 8/86 13/117
Weight
Fu X 2000 Liu L 2001 Xu Z 2000 Yang 2001
27/96 2/76 2/94 5/121
46.1 % 15.3 % 14.9 % 23.6 %
1.01 [ 0.64, 1.61 ] 0.22 [ 0.05, 0.99 ] 0.23 [ 0.05, 1.05 ] 0.37 [ 0.14, 1.01 ]
Total (95% CI)
387
359
100.0 %
0.62 [ 0.43, 0.91 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours Treatment
Favours Control
191
Analysis 16.4. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Vomiting
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 4 Headache
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 7 Abdominal pain
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours Treatment
Favours Control
(Continued . . . )
192
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Han 1995 Yang 2001 6/46 5/121 2/47 4/117 32.7 % 67.3 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
3.07 [ 0.65, 14.41 ] 1.21 [ 0.33, 4.39 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

167
164
100.0 %
1.82 [ 0.69, 4.77 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours Treatment
Favours Control
Analysis 16.5. Comparison 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Menses.
Comparison: 16 Mifepristone (all doses) versus anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 5 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Delay Fu X 2000 Liu L 2001 Wang 1999 Yang 2001 23/95 4/76 4/52 21/121 2/87 12/63 12/56 17/117 4.7 % 29.8 % 26.2 % 39.2 % 10.53 [ 2.56, 43.37 ] 0.28 [ 0.09, 0.81 ] 0.36 [ 0.12, 1.04 ] 1.19 [ 0.66, 2.15 ]
Total (95% CI)
344
323
100.0 %
1.14 [ 0.78, 1.68 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 Favours Treatment
10 100 1000 Favours Control
193
Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/47 1/101 1/66 16/1189 0/58
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 0.51 [ 0.03, 8.03 ] 2.61 [ 0.28, 24.45 ] 1.30 [ 0.68, 2.48 ] 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Han 1995 Han 1996 Lou X 2005 Sang 1999 Zhang YM 2002
0/46 1/199 3/76 21/1198 0/58
Total (95% CI)
1577
1461
1.32 [ 0.73, 2.41 ]
194
Analysis 17.3. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 3 Any side effect.
Comparison: 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 3 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 8/101 14/66
Weight
Han 1996 Lou X 2005
11/199 15/76
41.5 % 58.5 %
0.70 [ 0.29, 1.68 ] 0.93 [ 0.49, 1.78 ]
Total (95% CI)
275
167
100.0 %
0.83 [ 0.49, 1.41 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
195
Analysis 17.4. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Sang 1999 128/1198 239/1189 100.0 % 0.53 [ 0.44, 0.65 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
0.53 [ 0.44, 0.65 ]
Total events: 128 (Treatment), 239 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 6.22 (P < 0.00001) 2 Vomiting Sang 1999 12/1198 45/1189 100.0 % 0.26 [ 0.14, 0.50 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
0.26 [ 0.14, 0.50 ]
Total events: 12 (Treatment), 45 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 4.12 (P = 0.000037) 3 Breast tenderness Sang 1999 58/1198 62/1189 100.0 % 0.93 [ 0.65, 1.32 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
0.93 [ 0.65, 1.32 ]
Total events: 58 (Treatment), 62 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.42 (P = 0.68) 4 Headache Sang 1999 36/1198 44/1189 100.0 % 0.81 [ 0.53, 1.25 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
0.81 [ 0.53, 1.25 ]
Total events: 36 (Treatment), 44 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.94 (P = 0.35) 5 Dizziness Sang 1999 51/1198 66/1189 100.0 % 0.77 [ 0.54, 1.10 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
0.77 [ 0.54, 1.10 ]
Total events: 51 (Treatment), 66 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.46 (P = 0.14) 6 Fatigue Sang 1999 68/1198 102/1189 100.0 % 0.66 [ 0.49, 0.89 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1198
1189
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
100.0 %
0.66 [ 0.49, 0.89 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
196
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Total events: 68 (Treatment), 102 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.73 (P = 0.0063) 7 Abdominal pain Sang 1999 64/1198 54/1189 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
1.18 [ 0.83, 1.67 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

1198
1189
100.0 %
1.18 [ 0.83, 1.67 ]
Total events: 64 (Treatment), 54 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.90 (P = 0.37) 8 Diarrhoea
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Han 1995 Han 1996 Lou X 2005 Sang 1999 Zhang YM 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
6/46 12/199 2/66 95/1198 3/58
0/47 0/101 8/76 49/1189 6/58
0.8 % 1.0 % 11.7 % 77.1 % 9.4 %
13.28 [ 0.77, 229.11 ] 12.75 [ 0.76, 213.18 ] 0.29 [ 0.06, 1.31 ] 1.92 [ 1.38, 2.69 ] 0.50 [ 0.13, 1.90 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1567
1471
100.0 %
1.80 [ 1.33, 2.43 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
197
Analysis 17.5. Comparison 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses), Outcome 5 Delay in menses.
Comparison: 17 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + anordrin (all doses) Outcome: 5 Delay in menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Han 1996 Lou X 2005 Sang 1999
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
27/199 9/73 127/1170
20/101 5/65 162/1173
13.7 % 2.7 % 83.6 %
0.69 [ 0.40, 1.16 ] 1.60 [ 0.57, 4.54 ] 0.79 [ 0.63, 0.98 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
1442
1339
100.0 %
0.79 [ 0.65, 0.97 ]
Total (95% CI)
1442
1339
100.0 %
0.79 [ 0.65, 0.97 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours treatment
Favours control
198
Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/50 0/50
Weight
Chen 2002a Zeng XY 2007
1/50 1/50
50.0 % 50.0 %
3.00 [ 0.13, 71.92 ] 3.00 [ 0.13, 71.92 ]
Total (95% CI)
100
100
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.32, 28.36 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 18.5. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses) Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Weight
Chen 2002a Zeng XY 2007
4/50 5/50
50.0 % 50.0 %
0.67 [ 0.20, 2.22 ] 0.83 [ 0.27, 2.55 ]
Total (95% CI)
100
100
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.33, 1.70 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
199
Analysis 18.6. Comparison 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses), Outcome 6 Menses.
Comparison: 18 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + MTX (all doses) Outcome: 6 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Chen 2002a 3/50 2/50 6.3 % 1.50 [ 0.26, 8.60 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Treatment), 2 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.46 (P = 0.65) 2 Delay Chen 2002a Zeng XY 2007
50
50
6.3 %
1.50 [ 0.26, 8.60 ]
7/50 20/49
8/50 22/50
25.2 % 68.5 %
0.88 [ 0.34, 2.23 ] 0.93 [ 0.59, 1.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

99
100
93.7 %
0.91 [ 0.60, 1.39 ]
Total (95% CI)
149
150
100.0 %
0.95 [ 0.63, 1.43 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
200
Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 1/200
Weight
He CH 2002
3/200
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.31, 28.60 ]
Total (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.31, 28.60 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
201
Analysis 19.3. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse).
Comparison: 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses) Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancies (time from intercourse)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Within 72 h He CH 2002 1/100 1/98 67.1 % 0.98 [ 0.06, 15.45 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

100
98
67.1 %
0.98 [ 0.06, 15.45 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.01 (P = 0.99) 2 Later than 72 h He CH 2002 2/100 0/102 32.9 % 5.10 [ 0.25, 104.90 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

100
102
32.9 %
5.10 [ 0.25, 104.90 ]
Total (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
2.33 [ 0.35, 15.56 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
202
Analysis 19.6. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 6 Specic side effect.
Comparison: 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses) Outcome: 6 Specic side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea He CH 2002 14/200 19/200 100.0 % 0.74 [ 0.38, 1.43 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
0.74 [ 0.38, 1.43 ]
Total events: 14 (Treatment), 19 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.90 (P = 0.37) 2 Vomiting He CH 2002 2/200 1/200 100.0 % 2.00 [ 0.18, 21.88 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
2.00 [ 0.18, 21.88 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 3 Breast tenderness He CH 2002 1/200 2/200 100.0 % 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 4 Headache He CH 2002 1/200 0/200 100.0 % 3.00 [ 0.12, 73.20 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.12, 73.20 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.67 (P = 0.50) 5 Dizziness He CH 2002 2/200 0/200 100.0 % 5.00 [ 0.24, 103.49 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
5.00 [ 0.24, 103.49 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.04 (P = 0.30) 6 Fatigue He CH 2002 7/200 6/200 100.0 % 1.17 [ 0.40, 3.41 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
200
200
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
100.0 %
1.17 [ 0.40, 3.41 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
203
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Total events: 7 (Treatment), 6 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.28 (P = 0.78) 7 Abdominal pain He CH 2002 3/200 1/200 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
3.00 [ 0.31, 28.60 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.31, 28.60 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.96 (P = 0.34) 8 Diarrhoea He CH 2002 1/200 0/200 100.0 % 3.00 [ 0.12, 73.20 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
3.00 [ 0.12, 73.20 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.67 (P = 0.50) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment He CH 2002 12/200 17/200 100.0 % 0.71 [ 0.35, 1.44 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

200
200
100.0 %
0.71 [ 0.35, 1.44 ]
Total events: 12 (Treatment), 17 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.96 (P = 0.34) 10 Heavy menses He CH 2002 11/197 2/199 100.0 % 5.56 [ 1.25, 24.74 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

197
199
100.0 %
5.56 [ 1.25, 24.74 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
204
Analysis 19.7. Comparison 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses), Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 19 Mifepristone alone (all doses) versus mifepristone + tamoxifen (all doses) Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Delay He CH 2002 23/197 13/199 100.0 % 1.79 [ 0.93, 3.43 ]
Total (95% CI)

197
199
100.0 %
1.79 [ 0.93, 3.43 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/299
Weight
Wu 2002
7/300
100.0 %
3.49 [ 0.73, 16.65 ]
Total (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
3.49 [ 0.73, 16.65 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
205
Analysis 20.6. Comparison 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses), Outcome 6 Specic side effect.
Comparison: 20 Mifepristone versus mifepristone + misoprostol (all doses) Outcome: 6 Specic side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Wu 2002 19/300 22/299 100.0 % 0.86 [ 0.48, 1.56 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.86 [ 0.48, 1.56 ]
Total events: 19 (Treatment), 22 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.50 (P = 0.62) 2 Vomiting Wu 2002 1/300 2/299 100.0 % 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 3 Breast tenderness Wu 2002 0/300 2/299 100.0 % 0.20 [ 0.01, 4.13 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.20 [ 0.01, 4.13 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.04 (P = 0.30) 4 Headache Wu 2002 1/300 2/299 100.0 % 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.05, 5.47 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.57 (P = 0.57) 5 Dizziness Wu 2002 2/300 4/299 100.0 % 0.50 [ 0.09, 2.70 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.09, 2.70 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.81 (P = 0.42) 6 Fatigue
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
206
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Wu 2002 1/300 Control n/N 1/299 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 100.0 % Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 1.00 [ 0.06, 15.86 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 1 (Treatment), 1 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.00 (P = 1.0) 7 Abdominal pain Wu 2002
300
299
100.0 %
1.00 [ 0.06, 15.86 ]
4/300
13/299
100.0 %
0.31 [ 0.10, 0.93 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.31 [ 0.10, 0.93 ]
Total events: 4 (Treatment), 13 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.09 (P = 0.037) 8 Diarrhoea Wu 2002 1/300 4/299 100.0 % 0.25 [ 0.03, 2.22 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.25 [ 0.03, 2.22 ]
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.25 (P = 0.21) 9 Spotting/bleeding after treatment Wu 2002 19/300 31/299 100.0 % 0.61 [ 0.35, 1.06 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

300
299
100.0 %
0.61 [ 0.35, 1.06 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
207
Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women).
Comparison: 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancy (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/95
Weight
Liu L 2002
1/190
100.0 %
1.51 [ 0.06, 36.67 ]
Total (95% CI)

190
95
100.0 %
1.51 [ 0.06, 36.67 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 21.5. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 5 Any side effect.
Comparison: 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device Outcome: 5 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 0/95
Weight
Liu L 2002
16/190
100.0 %
16.59 [ 1.01, 273.52 ]
Total (95% CI)

190
95
100.0 %
16.59 [ 1.01, 273.52 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
208
Analysis 21.6. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 6 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device Outcome: 6 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Vomiting
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 3 Breast tenderness
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 4 Headache
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 7 Lower abdominal pain Liu L 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0/190
18/95
100.0 %
0.01 [ 0.00, 0.22 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

190
95
100.0 %
0.01 [ 0.00, 0.22 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
209
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Test for overall effect: Z = 3.01 (P = 0.0026) 8 Diarrhoea Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 10 Heavy menses
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
210
Analysis 21.7. Comparison 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device, Outcome 7 Menses.
Comparison: 21 Mifepristone (all doses) versus copper intrauterine device Outcome: 7 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Liu L 2002
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
34/189
4/95
100.0 %
4.27 [ 1.56, 11.69 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

189
95
100.0 %
4.27 [ 1.56, 11.69 ]
Total (95% CI)

189
95
100.0 %
4.27 [ 1.56, 11.69 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
211
Analysis 22.1. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 12/498
Weight
Wu 2010
9/498
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.32, 1.76 ]
Total (95% CI)

498
498
100.0 %
0.75 [ 0.32, 1.76 ]
Total events: 9 (Experimental), 12 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.66 (P = 0.51) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
212
Analysis 22.2. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 2 Side effects.

Comparison: 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone Outcome: 2 Side effects
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Wu 2010 51/498 38/498 23.9 % 1.34 [ 0.90, 2.00 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.44 (P = 0.15) 2 Vomiting Wu 2010
498
498
23.9 %
1.34 [ 0.90, 2.00 ]
Total events: 51 (Experimental), 38 (Control)
1/498
1/498
0.6 %
1.00 [ 0.06, 15.94 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 1 (Experimental), 1 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P = 1.0) 3 Diarrhoea Wu 2010
498
498
0.6 %
1.00 [ 0.06, 15.94 ]
1/498
4/498
2.5 %
0.25 [ 0.03, 2.23 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 1 (Experimental), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.24 (P = 0.21) 4 Fatigue Wu 2010
498
498
2.5 %
0.25 [ 0.03, 2.23 ]
18/498
9/498
5.7 %
2.00 [ 0.91, 4.41 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

498
498
5.7 %
2.00 [ 0.91, 4.41 ]
Total events: 18 (Experimental), 9 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.72 (P = 0.086) 5 Dizziness Wu 2010 13/498 8/498 5.0 % 1.63 [ 0.68, 3.89 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.09 (P = 0.28) 6 Headache Wu 2010
498
498
5.0 %
1.63 [ 0.68, 3.89 ]
4/498
6/498
3.8 %
0.67 [ 0.19, 2.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

498
498
3.8 %
0.67 [ 0.19, 2.35 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
213
(. . .
Study or subgroup Experimental n/N Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.63 (P = 0.53) 7 Breast tenderness Wu 2010 4/498 7/498 4.4 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.57 [ 0.17, 1.94 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 4 (Experimental), 7 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.90 (P = 0.37) 8 Lower abdominal pain Wu 2010
498
498
4.4 %
0.57 [ 0.17, 1.94 ]
8/498
9/498
5.7 %
0.89 [ 0.35, 2.29 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 8 (Experimental), 9 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.24 (P = 0.81) 9 Bleeding or spotting Wu 2010
498
498
5.7 %
0.89 [ 0.35, 2.29 ]
72/498
77/498
48.4 %
0.94 [ 0.70, 1.26 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.44 (P = 0.66)
498
498
48.4 %
0.94 [ 0.70, 1.26 ]
Total (95% CI)
4482
4482
100.0 %
1.08 [ 0.88, 1.33 ]
Total events: 172 (Experimental), 159 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 8.70, df = 8 (P = 0.37); I2 =8% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.75 (P = 0.45) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 8.70, df = 8 (P = 0.37), I2 =8%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
214
Analysis 22.3. Comparison 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone, Outcome 3 Menses.

Comparison: 22 Mifepristone versus gestrinone Outcome: 3 Menses
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early Wu 2010 13/489 35/486 33.7 % 0.37 [ 0.20, 0.69 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

489
486
33.7 %
0.37 [ 0.20, 0.69 ]
Total events: 13 (Experimental), 35 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 3.13 (P = 0.0018) 2 Delay Wu 2010 95/489 69/486 66.3 % 1.37 [ 1.03, 1.82 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.17 (P = 0.030)
489
486
66.3 %
1.37 [ 1.03, 1.82 ]
Total (95% CI)
978
972
100.0 %
1.03 [ 0.80, 1.33 ]
Total events: 108 (Experimental), 104 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 14.23, df = 1 (P = 0.00016); I2 =93% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.25 (P = 0.80) Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 14.03, df = 1 (P = 0.00), I2 =93%
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
215
Analysis 23.3. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 3 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] 1.78 [ 0.61, 5.22 ]
Rowlands 1983 Webb 1992
0/50 9/193
Total (95% CI)

243
242
1.78 [ 0.61, 5.22 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.00, df = 0 (P<0.00001); I2 =100% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.05 (P = 0.29) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
216
Analysis 23.4. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 4 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 4 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Rowlands 1983 Webb 1992 6/81 58/193 33/73 133/191 20.6 % 79.4 % 0.16 [ 0.07, 0.37 ] 0.43 [ 0.34, 0.55 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)
274
264
100.0 %
0.38 [ 0.30, 0.47 ]
Total events: 64 (Treatment), 166 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 5.35, df = 1 (P = 0.02); I2 =81% Test for overall effect: Z = 8.40 (P < 0.00001) 2 Vomiting Rowlands 1983 Webb 1992 1/81 6/193 12/73 42/191 23.0 % 77.0 % 0.08 [ 0.01, 0.56 ] 0.14 [ 0.06, 0.32 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

274
264
100.0 %
0.13 [ 0.06, 0.27 ]
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.33, df = 1 (P = 0.57); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 5.29 (P < 0.00001) 3 Breast tenderness Webb 1992 39/193 34/191 100.0 % 1.14 [ 0.75, 1.72 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

193
191
100.0 %
1.14 [ 0.75, 1.72 ]
Total events: 39 (Treatment), 34 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.60 (P = 0.55) 4 Headache
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
(Continued . . . )
217
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Test for overall effect: not applicable 7 Abdominal pain Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Analysis 23.5. Comparison 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe, Outcome 5 Menses.
Comparison: 23 Danazol (all doses) versus Yuzpe Outcome: 5 Menses
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Early
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 Delay Webb 1992
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
17/193
11/191
100.0 %
1.53 [ 0.74, 3.18 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

193
191
100.0 %
1.53 [ 0.74, 3.18 ]
Total (95% CI)
193
191
0.001 0.01 0.1 Favours treatment 1 10 100 1000 Favours control
100.0 %
1.53 [ 0.74, 3.18 ]
(Continued . . . )
218
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N Total events: 17 (Treatment), 11 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.14 (P = 0.25) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Analysis 24.1. Comparison 24 High-dose oestrogens versus Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 24 High-dose oestrogens versus Yuzpe Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 1/200
Weight
Van Santen 1985a
2/184
100.0 %
2.17 [ 0.20, 23.77 ]
Total (95% CI)

184
200
100.0 %
2.17 [ 0.20, 23.77 ]
219
Analysis 25.1. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women).
Comparison: 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies (all women)
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 17/675
Weight
Ellertson 2003
23/648
100.0 %
1.41 [ 0.76, 2.61 ]
Total (95% CI)

648
675
100.0 %
1.41 [ 0.76, 2.61 ]
Analysis 25.2. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 2 Any side effect.
Comparison: 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe Outcome: 2 Any side effect
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 429/660
Weight
Ellertson 2003
345/628
100.0 %
0.85 [ 0.77, 0.93 ]
Total (95% CI)

628
660
100.0 %
0.85 [ 0.77, 0.93 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
220
Analysis 25.3. Comparison 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe, Outcome 3 Specic side effects.
Comparison: 25 Half-dose Yuzpe versus standard Yuzpe Outcome: 3 Specic side effects
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N
Weight
1 Nausea Ellertson 2003 270/628 329/660 100.0 % 0.86 [ 0.77, 0.97 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

628
660
100.0 %
0.86 [ 0.77, 0.97 ]
Total events: 270 (Treatment), 329 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 2.45 (P = 0.014) 2 Vomiting Ellertson 2003 50/621 105/654 100.0 % 0.50 [ 0.36, 0.69 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

621
654
100.0 %
0.50 [ 0.36, 0.69 ]
Total events: 50 (Treatment), 105 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 4.25 (P = 0.000021) 3 Breast tenderness
Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 0 (Treatment), 0 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 4 Headache Ellertson 2003
0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
69/628
79/660
100.0 %
0.92 [ 0.68, 1.24 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

628
660
100.0 %
0.92 [ 0.68, 1.24 ]
Total events: 69 (Treatment), 79 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.55 (P = 0.58) 5 Dizziness Ellertson 2003 25/628 40/660 100.0 % 0.66 [ 0.40, 1.07 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

628
660
100.0 %
0.66 [ 0.40, 1.07 ]
Total events: 25 (Treatment), 40 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.69 (P = 0.091) 6 Fatigue
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
221
(. . .
Study or subgroup Treatment n/N 7 Abdominal pain Ellertson 2003 19/628 26/660 100.0 % Control n/N Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI
0.77 [ 0.43, 1.37 ]
Subtotal (95% CI)

628
660
100.0 %
0.77 [ 0.43, 1.37 ]
Total events: 19 (Treatment), 26 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 0.89 (P = 0.37) 8 Spotting/bleeding after treatment
Subtotal (95% CI)

0.0 %
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 26.1. Comparison 26 High-risk women versus low-risk women (all hormonal methods), Outcome 1 Observed number of pregnancies.
Comparison: 26 High-risk women versus low-risk women (all hormonal methods) Outcome: 1 Observed number of pregnancies
Study or subgroup
high risk women n/N
low riske women n/N 3/582 14/2587 0/478 31/1795 17/672 26/1566 32/2836 17/1221
0.1 0.2 0.5
Weight
Cheng 1999a Dada 2010 Glasier 1992 Glasier 2010 Ho 1993 Ngai 2005 Von Hertzen 2002 WHO 1998
5/25 3/236 4/322 9/104 10/156 14/446 33/1235 25/732
0.4 % 3.4 % 0.6 % 4.9 % 9.2 % 16.6 % 27.9 % 18.3 %

1 2 5 10
38.80 [ 9.82, 153.34 ] 2.35 [ 0.68, 8.12 ] 13.35 [ 0.72, 247.05 ] 5.01 [ 2.45, 10.25 ] 2.53 [ 1.18, 5.43 ] 1.89 [ 1.00, 3.59 ] 2.37 [ 1.46, 3.83 ] 2.45 [ 1.33, 4.51 ]
Favours treatment
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
222
(. . .
Study or subgroup high risk women n/N WHO 1999 Xiao 2002 Zhang JQ 2000 3/27 22/1492 3/77 low riske women n/N 10/1098 12/1491 2/522 Risk Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI 0.7 % 17.3 % 0.7 % Weight
M-H,Fixed,95% CI 12.20 [ 3.56, 41.84 ] 1.83 [ 0.91, 3.69 ] 10.17 [ 1.73, 59.89 ]
Total (95% CI)
4852
14848
100.0 %
2.67 [ 2.11, 3.39 ]
Total events: 131 (high risk women), 164 (low riske women) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 29.31, df = 10 (P = 0.001); I2 =66% Test for overall effect: Z = 8.09 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 27.1. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h.
Comparison: 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone Outcome: 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 1/212 4/425
Weight
Ashok 2002 Hamoda 2004
0/135 4/364
24.1 % 75.9 %
0.52 [ 0.02, 12.72 ] 1.17 [ 0.29, 4.64 ]
Total (95% CI)
499
637
100.0 %
1.01 [ 0.29, 3.54 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
223
Analysis 27.2. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone Outcome: 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/140 4/202
Odds Ratio M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Weight
0/135 4/364
32.5 % 67.5 %
0.20 [ 0.01, 4.30 ] 0.55 [ 0.14, 2.22 ]
Total (95% CI)
499
342
100.0 %
0.44 [ 0.13, 1.51 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
Analysis 27.3. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone Outcome: 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Control n/N 2/140 4/202
Weight
1/212 4/425
30.9 % 69.1 %
0.33 [ 0.03, 3.64 ] 0.47 [ 0.12, 1.90 ]
Total (95% CI)
637
342
100.0 %
0.43 [ 0.13, 1.42 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
224
Analysis 27.4. Comparison 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h.
Comparison: 27 Time elapsed since intercourse (coitus-treatment interval) in mifepristone Outcome: 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h
Study or subgroup
Treatment n/N
Weight
Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002
12/991 18/1215
26.5 % 73.5 %
0.36 [ 0.04, 2.83 ] 0.67 [ 0.20, 2.31 ]
Total (95% CI)
2206
167
100.0 %
0.59 [ 0.20, 1.71 ]
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Favours treatment
Favours control
225
Analysis 28.1. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 2448 h.
Comparison: 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel Outcome: 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 3/298 7/319 4/114 4/338
Weight
Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 Ho 1993 WHO 1998
4/263 10/337 4/217 2/450
14.2 % 36.3 % 26.5 % 23.1 %
1.51 [ 0.34, 6.69 ] 1.35 [ 0.52, 3.51 ] 0.53 [ 0.13, 2.06 ] 0.38 [ 0.07, 2.04 ]
Total (95% CI)
1267
1069
100.0 %
0.93 [ 0.50, 1.73 ]
Total events: 20 (Experimental), 18 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.77, df = 3 (P = 0.43); I2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.23 (P = 0.82) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
226
Analysis 28.2. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 4872 h.
Comparison: 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel Outcome: 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 6/213 5/196 5/187
Weight
Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 WHO 1998
4/263 10/337 2/450
33.1 % 31.6 % 35.3 %
0.54 [ 0.15, 1.89 ] 1.16 [ 0.40, 3.35 ] 0.17 [ 0.03, 0.85 ]
Total (95% CI)
1050
596
100.0 %
0.60 [ 0.31, 1.19 ]
Total events: 16 (Experimental), 16 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.91, df = 2 (P = 0.14); I2 =49% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.45 (P = 0.15) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
227
Analysis 28.3. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel Outcome: 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 6/213 5/196 5/187
Weight
Creinin 2006 Glasier 2010 WHO 1998
3/298 7/319 4/338
35.6 % 31.6 % 32.8 %
0.36 [ 0.09, 1.41 ] 0.86 [ 0.28, 2.67 ] 0.44 [ 0.12, 1.63 ]
Total (95% CI)
955
596
100.0 %
0.54 [ 0.27, 1.11 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
228
Analysis 28.4. Comparison 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h.
Comparison: 28 Time elapsed since intercourse in levonorgestrel Outcome: 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 7/302 3/106 0/40 8/314
Weight
Dada 2010 Glasier 2010 Hamoda 2004 Von Hertzen 2002
9/2492 22/852 19/966 36/2381
37.9 % 16.2 % 2.9 % 42.9 %
0.16 [ 0.06, 0.42 ] 0.91 [ 0.28, 3.00 ] 1.65 [ 0.10, 26.91 ] 0.59 [ 0.28, 1.27 ]
Total (95% CI)
6691
762
100.0 %
0.51 [ 0.31, 0.84 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
229
Analysis 29.1. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h.
Comparison: 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate Outcome: 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 6/268 7/329
Weight
0/273 5/312
49.0 % 51.0 %
0.08 [ 0.00, 1.33 ] 0.75 [ 0.24, 2.35 ]
Total (95% CI)
585
597
100.0 %
0.42 [ 0.16, 1.12 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
Analysis 29.2. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate Outcome: 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 1/234 3/203
Weight
0/273 5/312
30.8 % 69.2 %
0.29 [ 0.01, 6.98 ] 1.08 [ 0.26, 4.49 ]
Total (95% CI)
585
437
100.0 %
0.84 [ 0.24, 2.95 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
230
Analysis 29.3. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate Outcome: 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 1/234 3/203
Weight
6/268 7/329
22.3 % 77.7 %
5.24 [ 0.64, 43.20 ] 1.44 [ 0.38, 5.50 ]
Total (95% CI)
597
437
100.0 %
2.29 [ 0.77, 6.82 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
231
Analysis 29.4. Comparison 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate, Outcome 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h.
Comparison: 29 Time elapsed since intercourse in ulipristal acetate Outcome: 4 < 72 h vs > 72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 0/126
Weight
Glasier 2010
15/844
100.0 %
4.66 [ 0.28, 77.39 ]
Total (95% CI)

844
126
100.0 %
4.66 [ 0.28, 77.39 ]
Total events: 15 (Experimental), 0 (Control) Test for overall effect: Z = 1.07 (P = 0.28) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
Analysis 30.1. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h.
Comparison: 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe Outcome: 1 24 h vs > 24-48 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 7/217 6/130 15/370
Weight
Ashok 2002 Ho 1993 WHO 1998
3/134 3/217 9/459
18.1 % 25.5 % 56.4 %
0.69 [ 0.18, 2.64 ] 0.30 [ 0.08, 1.18 ] 0.48 [ 0.21, 1.09 ]
Total (95% CI)
810
717
100.0 %
0.47 [ 0.26, 0.88 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
232
Analysis 30.2. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe Outcome: 2 24 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 7/120 7/150
Weight
Ashok 2002 WHO 1998
3/134 9/459
41.2 % 58.8 %
0.38 [ 0.10, 1.45 ] 0.42 [ 0.16, 1.11 ]
Total (95% CI)
593
270
100.0 %
0.41 [ 0.18, 0.89 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
233
Analysis 30.3. Comparison 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe, Outcome 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h.
Comparison: 30 Time elapsed since intercourse in Yuzpe Outcome: 3 > 24-48 h vs > 48-72 h
Study or subgroup
Experimental n/N
Control n/N 7/120 7/150
Weight
Ashok 2002 WHO 1998
7/217 15/370
47.7 % 52.3 %
0.54 [ 0.18, 1.57 ] 0.86 [ 0.34, 2.16 ]
Total (95% CI)
587
270
100.0 %
0.71 [ 0.35, 1.41 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Favours control
WHATS NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 18 July 2011.
Date 15 February 2012
Event New citation required and conclusions have changed
Description The number of included studies in this updated review increased from 81 to 100. Compared with levonorgestrel, the risk ratio of pregnancy with mid-dose (25-50 mg) mifepristone was slightly increased from 0. 50 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.79) to 0.64 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) in this update. Ulipristal acetate appeared more effective than levonorgestrel, but more data are needed to conrm this association. Ulipristal acetate users were more likely to experience a menstrual return after the expected date than levonorgestrel users did. However, levonorgestrel was associated with higher risk of early menstrual return than ulipristal acetate. Gestrinone was included in this review for the rst time. It appeared to have similar effectiveness and overall side effects as mifepristone. The latter was associated with higher risk of menstrual delay than gestrinone
234
HISTORY
Protocol rst published: Issue 4, 1998 Review rst published: Issue 3, 1999
Date 18 February 2008
Event New citation required and conclusions have changed
Description Substantive amendment
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
AMG had the idea and conducted the initial version of the review with LC. LC contributed to all sections of the review in both the current update and the previous versions. YC checked the statistics and contributed to the text.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
LC participated in emergency contraceptive trials included in this review. MG is staff of the WHO, which has a Memorandum of understanding regarding LNG for EC with Gedeon Richter, one of the companies marketing this preparation. YC declares no conicts of interest.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT Internal sources

HRP-UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland. UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Oxford, UK. Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, China.
External sources
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA, USA.
INDEX TERMS Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)

Contraception, Postcoital [ methods]; Contraceptives, Postcoital [ administration & dosage]; Drug Administration Schedule; Levonorgestrel [administration & dosage]; Mifepristone [administration & dosage]; Norpregnadienes [administration & dosage]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
235
MeSH check words

Female; Humans
236

Cochrane

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Cochrane

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Interventions for emergency contraception (Review)

Cheng L, Che Y, Glmezoglu AM

232 233 234 234 234 235 235 235 235

Interventions for emergency contraception

[experimental intervention] compared with [control intervention] for [health problem]

of Low risk population [value] per 1000

Observed number pregnancies [follow-up]

[Delete as appropriate] very low

Medium risk population [value] per 1000

[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value])

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Search methods for identication of studies

PubMed: 2003 to July 2011

Data collection and analysis

contraception, postcoital or anticoncepcion postcoital or anticoncepcao pos-coito or contraceptives, postcoital or anticonceptivos

Risk of bias in included studies

25. Half-dose Yuzpe regimen versus standard Yuzpe regimen

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS Implications for practice

Pregnancy outcome after the emergency contraceptive failure

Implications for research

References to studies included in this review

References to studies excluded from this review

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Authors judgement High risk

Support for judgement C - Inadequate

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Risk of bias Bias Authors judgement Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Risk of bias Bias Authors judgement Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Risk of bias Bias Authors judgement Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Authors judgement High risk

Support for judgement C - Inadequate

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Risk of bias Bias Authors judgement Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Interventions Outcomes Notes

Bias Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Authors judgement High risk