Association between the Current Use of Low-Dose Oral Contraceptives and Cardiovascular Arterial Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The long-term cardiovascular safety of widely used oral contraceptives (OCs) is still debated, and no meta-analysis assesses the modern use of OCs and the associated cardiovascular risks. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the risk of cardiovascular diseases associated with current use of low-dose combined OCs. DATA SOURCES: All studies published between January 1980 and October 2002 were searched using MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and Scientific Citations. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies were selected independently by two investigators (J.P.B., P.A.E.) based on inclusion criteria: low-dose combined OC (<50 mug of ethinyl-estradiol); more than 10 cases in low-dose users; clear definition of cases; concurrent controls; and control for age. A third investigator (J.E.N.) adjudicated disagreements. From 2715 identified articles, 14 independent studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION: All data were abstracted by one investigator (J.P.B.) in a systematic manner. Classification of OCs and types of exposure were directly abstracted from studies. Current use was defined as use at the time of the event or within 3 months. Only peer-reviewed studies with definition of events as definite or possible, based on prespecified criteria, were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: The summary risk estimates associated with current use of low-dose OCs were 1.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38, 2.44] for myocardial infarctions and 2.12 (95% CI = 1.56, 2.86) for ischemic strokes. The overall summary odds ratio for both outcomes was 2.01 (95% CI = 1.63, 2.48). Second generation OCs were associated with a significant increased risk of both myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke events [1.85 (95% CI = 1.03,3.32) and 2.54 (95% CI = 1.96,3.28), respectively]; and third-generation OCs, for ischemic stroke outcome only [2.03 (95% CI = 1.15,3.57)]. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events, including a significant risk of vascular arterial complications with third generation OCs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".