Sule 2005.

Methods	Design: retrospective chart review Study examined hormonal contraceptives and weight changes. Location: family planning clinic of university hospital in Zaria, Nigeria Time frame: registered from 01 January 1993 to 31 December 1995 Sample size estimation and outcome of focus: no information
Participants	516 new clients Inclusion criteria: used hormonal contraceptive (COC, injectable (DMPA or NET‐EN), Norplant); non‐hormonal IUC users as controls; followed for ≥ 1 year (mean age hormonal users 30.5 years and non‐hormonal IUD 29.1 years) Exclusion criteria: used barrier methods; had bilateral tubal ligation; chose no contraceptive method
Interventions	Method users 1) Norplant (N = 188) 2) non‐hormonal IUC (N = 136)
Outcomes	Mean weight gain or loss by contraceptive group Time frame: 1 and 3 years Report had mean change for those with increase, decrease, or no change in weight. We calculated combined weight change means and standard deviations.
Notes	Injectable users not used in this review; DMPA and NET‐EN had been grouped for analysis.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Users of contraceptive method; women presumably chose method
NOS selection (NRS)	Low risk	Exposed: clinic attendees Non‐exposed: same population as exposed but chose different contraceptive Exposure: clinic records
NOS comparability (NRS)	High risk	Analysis: no adjustment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not feasible due to women presumably having chosen 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: investigators selected charts with ≥ 1 year of data, so no loss by 1 year; by 3 years, overall loss by 3 years of 54% (Norplant 31%; COC 95%; IUC 56%)