| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Ashok 2001 | Not an RCT or quasi‐RCT |
| Ashok 2004 | It is the same clinical trial as Ashok 2002. The objective of this paper was to compare side effects, women's acceptance and satisfaction with Mife 100 mg vs the Yuzpe regimen for EC |
| Ban 2001 | Not an RCT |
| Benagiano G 2010 | Not an RCT |
| Brache 2013 | Pooled data meta‐analysis of LNG vs UPA as EC |
| Byamugisha 2010 | 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 |
| Chen 2011 | Phase IV clinical trial |
| Chen 2012 | Not RCT |
| Creinin 1997 | Meta‐analysis, not a clinical trial |
| D'Souza 2003 | An RCT in an outpatient clinic setting. Objective was to assess insertion‐linked pain and the short‐term user‐acceptability and safety of the GyneFix as compared with T‐framed IUDs. No effectiveness result mentioned in this paper |
| Dixon 1980 | 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 |
| Dong 2007 | An observational study on Mife vs LNG vs Cu‐IUD for EC, not an RCT |
| Ellertson 2003b | An observational study, not an RCT |
| Espinos 1999 | Not an RCT |
| Fan 1998 | Not an RCT 518 women used Mife 25 mg + anordrin 7.5 mg for EC, 1 observed pregnancy/40 expected pregnancies |
| Fan 2001b | Not an RCT 1013 women used Cu‐IUD for EC, 2 women got pregnant |
| Fasoli 1989 | Review paper |
| Fine 2010b | 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 |
| Gan 1999 | Not an RCT 200 women used Mife 10 mg for EC, 2 observed pregnancies/15 expected pregnancies |
| Gan SX 2001 | No mention of random allocation |
| Gao 2001 | Not an RCT |
| Glasier 2013 | pooled data meta‐analysis of LNG vs UPA for EC |
| Gottardi 1979 | Not an RCT |
| Gottardi 1986 | Not an EC study |
| Gu 2002 | Not an RCT |
| Guillebaud 1983 | Randomised and non‐randomised groups of women analysed together. Randomised groups were published separately and included in this review (Rowlands 1983) |
| Halpern 2010 | A systematic review, not an RCT |
| Han 1999b | Part of Sang 1999 study |
| Han 2001b | Not an RCT 126 women used GyneFix IUD for EC, no one got pregnant/12 expected pregnancies |
| Haspels 1976 | Not an RCT |
| He 1991 | Not an EC study; it is a study on regular postcoital use of LNG |
| Ho 2013 | Review |
| Hoffman 1983 | Not an RCT or quasi‐RCT |
| Jiang 2000 | No mention of random allocation |
| Jiang 2002 | Not an RCTor quasi‐RCT 120 women used R2323 (gestrinone) 5 mg as ECP within 120 h of intercourse |
| Jin 2005 | Part of a large WHO multicentre dose‐finding study of Mife (see WHO 1999) |
| Kesserü 1973 | Not an RCT; also it is a study on regular postcoital contraception |
| Li 2001 | Not an RCT or quasi‐RCT 100 women used Mife 25 mg as ECPs within 72 h of intercourse. 2 women got pregnant |
| Li 2002b | Not an RCT 150 women used Mife 25 mg as ECPs within 72 h of intercourse. 3 women got pregnant |
| Li 2005a | 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 |
| Lippes 1976 | Not an RCT |
| Lippes 1979 | Not an RCT |
| Liu 2002a | 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 |
| Luerti 1986 | Not an RCT |
| Ma 2001 | Not an RCT 110 women used Mife 25 mg single dose for EC, 1 got pregnant |
| Mo 2004 | An RCT, but the loss of follow‐up was 20% |
| Mor 2005 | 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 efficacious as the oral route |
| Moreau 2012 | Pooled data meta‐analyses of UPA for EC |
| Piaggio 2003a | A meta‐analyses of Mife 10 mg for EC |
| Piaggio 2003b | A meta‐analyses of effectiveness of different dosages of Mife for EC |
| Polakow 2013 | LNG used during LAM. EC was not the main study subject |
| Qi 2000b | Not an RCT 622 women used Mife 25 mg for EC. 5 got pregnant, the effective rate was 91.25% |
| Qiao 2002 | Not an RCT 140 women used Mife 25 mg in combination with MTX 5 mg for EC. No one got pregnant |
| Qin 2000 | Not an RCT |
| Raymond 2000 | An RCT of meclizine to prevent nausea associated with Yuzpe regimen |
| Raymond 2006 | A study to assess how a strategy to maximise access to ECP would affect rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections |
| Roye 2001 | Not an RCT. It is a letter to the editor |
| Ruan 2012 | Not RCT |
| Scarduelli 1998 | Not an RCT |
| Schilling 1979 | Not an RCT |
| Schreiber 2010 | Conducted to assess the role of advanced supply of EC to teenage mothers |
| Scott 2012 | Review |
| Shaaban 2013 | Comparison of LAM and LNG for EC, EC was not the main study subject |
| Shen 2010 | Not an RCT |
| Shochet 2004 | Not an RCT. Investigated side effects after the standard Yuzpe regimen or 2 modifications |
| Song 2007 | Not an RCT |
| Sun 2005 | Review |
| Tian 2000 | 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 |
| Turok 2010 | A prospective observational study, not an RCT |
| Turok 2014 | A prospective observational study, not an RCT |
| Turok 2016 | A prospective observational study, not an RCT |
| Van Santen 1983 | Not an RCT |
| Van Santen 1985b | 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) |
| Virjo 1999 | Not an RCT |
| Wang 2006b | Not an RCT |
| Wei 2002b | Not an RCT 309 women used Mife 25 mg for EC. 209 women had taken the pill within 72 h, and 3 of them got pregnant; 100 women had taken the pill within 72‐120 h and 2 of them got pregnant |
| Wu 1999b | Not an RCT 793 women used Mife 25 mg single dose, 6 observed pregnancies/58 expected pregnancies |
| Wu 2005 | Review |
| Xiao 2004 | 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 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 |
| Ye 2014 | No randomised comparison |
| Yu 2001 | Review |
| Yuzpe 1974 | No randomised comparison |
| Yuzpe 1977 | No randomised comparison |
| Yuzpe 1982 | No randomised comparison |
| Zhang 1999a | 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 |
| Zhang 1999c | Part of Sang 1999 study |
| Zhang 1999d | Results have been included in Sang 1999 |
| Zhang 1999e | Not an RCT 123 women used LNG 0.75 mg orally, 2 doses, 12 h apart, 1 observed pregnancy/13 expected pregnancies |
| Zhao 2006 | Not an RCT A questionnaire survey among 301 women who had LNG EC failure and had abortion |
| Zhao H 2001 | Not an RCT |
| Zhu 1999 | Not an RCT. 17 women used Mife 25 mg + MTX 5 mg for EC, no one got pregnant |
| Zhu 2007 | Not an RCT |
| Zuliani 1990 | Study conducted in Milan, Italy, which started reporting in 1986. The first 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 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 |
CI: confidence interval; Cu‐IUD: copper‐intrauterine device; EC: emergency contraception; ECP: emergency contraceptive pill; IUD: intrauterine device; LAM: LNG: levonorgestrel; Mife: mifepristone; MTX: methotrexate; RCT: randomised controlled trial; UPA: ulipristal acetate