Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1983 Oct 1;129(7):699-701, 710.

Vaginal mechanical contraceptive devices.

M Smith, B N Barwin
PMCID: PMC1875460  PMID: 6616379

Abstract

The alleged adverse effects of oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices have led to increased consumer and physician demand for vaginal contraceptive devices. The efficacy and the advantages and disadvantages of vaginal sponges, cervical caps and diaphragms are discussed and compared in this article.

Full text

PDF
699

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arthur C. Customized cervical cap: evolution of an ancient idea. J Nurse Midwifery. 1980 Nov-Dec;25(6):33–34. doi: 10.1016/0091-2182(80)90097-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlin L. E., Dotterer W. H., Henriques E. S. Increase in diaphragm use in a university population. JOGN Nurs. 1979 Sep-Oct;8(5):280–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1979.tb00962.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chvapil M., Droegemueller W., Betts K., Heine W., Weinstein L. Preliminary testing of the contraceptive collagen sponge. Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Oct;56(4):503–506. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Edelman D. A. Nonprescription vaginal contraception. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1980;18(5):340–344. doi: 10.1002/j.1879-3479.1980.tb00510.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fairbanks B., Scharfman B. The cervical cap: past and current experience. Women Health. 1980 Fall;5(3):61–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gara E. Nursing protocol to improve the effectiveness of the contraceptive diaphragm. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1981 Jan-Feb;6(1):41–45. doi: 10.1097/00005721-198101000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall R. E. Continuation and pregnancy rates with four contraceptive methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Jul 1;116(5):671–681. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(15)33133-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Koch J. P. The Prentif contraceptive cervical cap: a contemporary study of its clinical safety and effectiveness. Contraception. 1982 Feb;25(2):135–159. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(82)90026-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Koch J. P. The Prentif contraceptive cervical cap: acceptability aspects and their implications for future cap design. Contraception. 1982 Feb;25(2):161–173. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(82)90027-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lane M. E., Arceo R., Sobrero A. J. Successful use of the diaphragm and jelly by a young population: report of a clinical study. Fam Plann Perspect. 1976 Mar-Apr;8(2):81–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mills J. L., Harley E. E., Reed G. F., Berendes H. W. Are spermicides teratogenic? JAMA. 1982 Nov 5;248(17):2148–2151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tatum H. J., Connell-Tatum E. B. Barrier contraception: a comprehensive overview. Fertil Steril. 1981 Jul;36(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)45609-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tyrer L. B., Bradshaw L. E. Barrier methods. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Apr;6(1):39–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Vaughan B., Trussell J., Menken J., Jones E. F. Contraceptive failure among married women in the United States, 1970-1973. Fam Plann Perspect. 1977 Nov-Dec;9(6):251–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Widhalm M. V. Vaginal lesion: etiology--a malfitting diaphragm? J Nurse Midwifery. 1979 Sep-Oct;24(5):39–40. doi: 10.1016/0091-2182(79)90160-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES