Moore 1995.

Methods	Design: retrospective chart review Location: rural obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Arizona (USA) Time frame: no information Sample size estimation and outcome of focus: none; selected 50 women in each group who met inclusion criteria
Participants	150 women, 15 to 30 years old Inclusion criteria: users of OCs, Norplant, or DMPA Exclusion criteria: prior hormonal contraceptive therapy; height < 62 inches (152.4 cm) or > 70 inches (177.8 cm); weight < 100 lb (45.5 kg) or > 180 lb (81.8 kg); presence of diabetes; history of thyroid disease; < 12 months postpartum
Interventions	1) Norplant (N = 50) 2) DMPA 150 mg (N = 50) Third group of OC users excluded from this review; type of OC not specified and may have included progestin‐only OCs and combination OCs
Outcomes	Weight gain (kg) Timeframe: 1 year
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Women presumably chose contraceptive method; charts reviewed until 50 met eligibility criteria for each group
NOS selection (NRS)	Low risk	Exposed: rural clinic population Non‐exposed: same population as exposed but used different contraceptive Exposure: clinic records
NOS comparability (NRS)	Low risk	Analysis: model adjusted for age, height, weight, and parity at beginning of study period
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not feasible because women presumably chose contraceptive method
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information; objective outcome measure
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Loss to follow‐up: retrospective review of charts with relevant data; does not account for discontinuation and loss