2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and psychotropic drugs: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For cohort and case‐control studies, we graded each of the following criteria: definition and assessment of exposures, definition and identification of outcomes, selection of controls, blinding, confounders, sample size, response rate/follow up, and internal validity . As no standardised grading scale exists to assess the quality of PK studies, we utilised a rating system previously reported to evaluate studies with PK outcomes, which included assessment of study design, sample size, exposures, outcomes, timing, intersubject variability, population, steady state of perpetrator drug, and validation of assays . We graded studies based on their primary outcome, but also report secondary outcomes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For cohort and case‐control studies, we graded each of the following criteria: definition and assessment of exposures, definition and identification of outcomes, selection of controls, blinding, confounders, sample size, response rate/follow up, and internal validity . As no standardised grading scale exists to assess the quality of PK studies, we utilised a rating system previously reported to evaluate studies with PK outcomes, which included assessment of study design, sample size, exposures, outcomes, timing, intersubject variability, population, steady state of perpetrator drug, and validation of assays . We graded studies based on their primary outcome, but also report secondary outcomes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 As no standardised grading scale exists to assess the quality of PK studies, we utilised a rating system previously reported to evaluate studies with PK outcomes, which included assessment of study design, sample size, exposures, outcomes, timing, intersubject variability, population, steady state of perpetrator drug, and validation of assays. 12 We graded studies based on their primary outcome, but also report secondary outcomes. A study received the overall grade of good if every graded component received a score of good, and poor if one or more grading criteria was graded as poor (considered a fatal flaw that would invalidate results).…”
Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Bias In Individual Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For trials with pharmacokinetic outcomes, we used a previously reported quality rating system to assess study design, sample size, drug exposure and adherence, appropriateness of pharmacokinetic parameters, timing of blood draws, intersubject variability, steady state of perpetrator drug, and validation of assays. 9 The quality of each study was assigned independently by 2 authors. Any differences were resolved through discussion with a third author.…”
Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SSRIs 1 Evidence: Limited clinical and pharmacokinetic data do not demonstrate concern for SSRIs decreasing the effectiveness of oral contraceptives. Limited evidence suggests that for women taking SSRIs, the use of hormonal contraceptives was not associated with differences in effectiveness of the SSRI for treatment or in adverse events when compared with women not taking hormonal contraceptives (379).…”
Section: Psychotropic Medicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%