Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 31.
Published in final edited form as: Contraception. 2009 Dec 5;81(3):197–201. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.10.013

Table 1. Summary of study characteristics.

Study Study design Study initiation Study N Implant(s) Follow-up (years) Methodological quality issues
Fan et al. [6] Randomized trial Recruited: 1993 2,999 Sino-implant (II) vs China 6-capsule vs Norplant 5 ‘Randomized prospective’ study. No information on sequence generation or allocation concealment. Follow-up was >99%.
Fang et al. [4] Randomized trial Recruited: Nov 93 to Jan 95 19,673 Sino-implant (II) vs China 6-capsule 2 Participants were ‘randomly allocated.’ No information on sequence generation or allocation concealment. Follow-up was 94%.
Qi et al. [7] Randomized trials (Phase I and II) Dec 1993 to Jan 1995 2,300 Sino-implant (II) vs China 6-capsule vs Norplant (Phase I only) 5 Participants ‘randomly enrolled.’ No information on sequence generation or allocation concealment. Follow-up >99%. Two cases excluded for non-compliance.
Xing et al. [8] Randomized trial Nov 1993 to Jan 1995 7,941 Sino-implant (II) vs China 6-capsule 5 Eligible persons ‘randomized into groups of the study.’ No information on sequence generation or allocation concealment. Follow-up was 92%.