Table 3.
Results by contraceptive method
| Study | Comparison groups | Mean difference (95% CI) | Quality of evidencea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progestin-only oral contraceptive | |||
| Ball 1991 | NET 350 μg vs levonorgestrel 30 µg |
NS | Very low |
| Napolitano 2015 | Desogestrel 75 µg vs no hormonal contraceptive |
Fat mass (%) 3.30 (2.08 to 4.52); fat-free mass (%) −3.30 (−4.52 to − 2.08) |
Low |
| Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) 150 mg/mL | |||
| Comparison: combination contraceptive | |||
| Tankeyoon 1976 | DMPA vs COC | NS | Low |
| Tuchman 2005 | DMPA vs COC | NS | Very low |
| DMPA vs MPA + E2C | NS | ||
| Bonny 2009 | DMPA + placebo vs DMPA + E2C | NS | Low |
| Comparison: another progestin-only injectable formulation or regimen | |||
| Castle 1978 | DMPA 150 vs DMPA 450 | NS | Very low (poor) |
| Espey 2000 | DMPA: interval (≥ 20 weeks) vs postpartum (5 to 8 weeks) |
NS | Low |
| Westhoff 2007 | DMPA-intramuscular 150 vs DMPA-subcutaneous 104 |
NS | Low |
| WHO 1983 | DMPA vs NET-EN (60 days) | NS | Low |
| NET-EN: 60 days vs 84 days | NS | ||
| Salem 1988 | DMPA vs NET-EN | NS | Moderate |
| Comparison: no hormonal contraceptive (retrospective studies) | |||
| Taneepanichskul 1998 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | NS | Very low |
| Pantoja 2010 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | Weight (kg): 2.28 (1.79 to 2.77); 2.71 (2.12 to 3.30); 3.17 (2.51 to 3.83) |
Low |
| Modesto 2015 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | Reported mean weights (kg): 1.3 vs 0.2 (P < 0.0001); 3.5 vs 1.9 (P < 0.0001); 6.6 vs 4.9 (P < 0.0350) |
Low |
| Comparison: no hormonal contraceptive (prospective studies) | |||
| Vickery 2013 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Dal’Ava 2014 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Dos Santos 2014 | DMPA vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Bonny 2009 | DMPA + placebo vs no hormonal | Total body fat (%) 11.00 (2.64 to 19.36); lean body mass (%) −4.00 (−6.93 to −1.07) |
Low |
| Nyirati 2013 | DMPA: 6 weeks postpartum vs sterilization |
NS | Very low |
| Implants | |||
| Vickery 2013 | ENG implant vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Salem 1984 | Norplant vs other non-hormonal | Weight (kg) 0.74 (0.52 to 0.96) | Very Low |
| Norplant vs Cu IUC | Weight (kg) 0.47 (0.29 to 0.65) | ||
| Sule 2005 | Norplant vs non-hormonal IUC | Weight (kg) 1.10 (0.36 to 1.84) | Very low |
| Norplant vs COC | NS | ||
| Moore 1995 | Norplant vs DMPA | NS | Low |
| Sivin 1998 | Norplant vs 2-rod LNG | NS | Moderate |
| Levonorgestrel-releasing IUC vs no hormonal method | |||
| Dal’Ava 2012 | LNG-IUC vs non-hormonal IUC | Reported mean weights (kg): Total body fat (%) 2.5 vs −1.3 (P = 0.029); lean body mass (%) −1.4 vs 1.0 (P = 0.027) |
Moderate |
| Vickery 2013 | LNG-IUC vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Modesto 2015 | LNG-IUC vs Cu IUC | NS | Low |
| Napolitano 2015 | LNG-IUC vs no contraceptive | Fat mass (%) 1.60 (0.45 to 2.75); fat-free mass (%) −1.60 (−2.75 to − 0.45) |
Low |
a
From Table 1
Cu IUC: copper intrauterine contraception
COC: combination oral contraception
DMPA: depot medroxyprogesterone acetate
LNG-IUC: levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception
MPA: medroxyprogesterone acetate
NET: norethisterone
NET-EN: norethisterone enanthate
NS = no significant difference between groups