We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

Lack of Objectivity in the Debate Concerning Third-Generation Oral Contraceptives and Venous Thrombosis

Paul Egermayer, MA, MB, ChB; Chris Frampton, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(3):484. doi:.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


The debate on possible differences in thrombogenic potential between so-called "third-generation" oral contraceptives and "second-generation" pills has generated more heat than light, providing many examples of unwarranted conclusions based on inconclusive data; for example:

The numbers in question were based on 6 cases and 3 controls, and since no significant difference was found, it seems illogical to refute a possible cause for a difference in the same study. Here is another example: "The odds ratios for all third-generation monophasic contraceptives were higher [than for second-generation pills]."2 The odds ratio for the overall difference was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.2), and so cannot accurately be described as being statistically higher than parity. A third example comes from another highly regarded journal, in an editorial stating that the data presented in the accompanying research letter clearly show a higher risk of fatal pulmonary embolism in women using third-generation oral contraceptives compared with those using second-generation pills containing levonorgestrel.3P values or confidence intervals for this difference are not provided in the research letter, but we calculated the odds ratio as 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-9.84), hence, not statistically significant.4

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles