Correction: Male contraception: where are we going and where have we been?

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Reynolds-Wright JJ, Anderson RA. Male contraception: where are we going and where have we been? BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2019;45:236-42. There is a minor error in the paper. At present the text incorrectly reads: While the trial was stopped early by a WHO review panel due to concern over side effects (despite very few men discontinuing treatment), there were just four pregnancies, giving a contraceptive efficacy of 1.59% (CI 0.6 to 4.2),12 thus matching hormonal female methods and substantially better than condoms, the only current reversible male method. The correct text should be: While the trial was stopped early by a WHO review panel due to concern over side effects (despite very few men discontinuing treatment), there were just four pregnancies, giving a Pearl index of 2.18 pregnancies per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.82 to 5.80),12 thus matching hormonal female methods and substantially better than condoms, the only current reversible male method.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)157
Number of pages1
JournalBMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Correction: Male contraception: where are we going and where have we been?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this