Effectiveness, Safety, and Side Effect of Depo Progestin and Depo Vigestron Contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Trends in contraceptive injections increased in the last two decades. Hormonal contraceptive injection is available in single or combination dose. However, the products are available more than 1 ml (more than recommendation of WHO). This study aims to determine the effectiveness, safety and side effects of the contraceptive injection Depo Progestin® 3 ml, Depo Vigestron® 3 ml and Depo Vigestron® 1 ml.Methods: This study used randomized controlled clinical trial and open label. The research subject were 900 people in two center, Surabaya and Palembang. The samples were divided into 3 (three) groups, group Depo Progestin® vial 3 ml, group Depo Vigestron® vial 3 ml, and group Depo Vigestron® vial 1 ml. Each of consist 300 women using the "random permutation block". Analysis was performed 5 times, when an initial injection and a schedule of repeated injections in the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th month. The data analyzed include weight, blood pressure, menstrual pattern, and the complaints of the patients.Results: From the 900 only 862 valid samples. The results showed no signi fi cant difference between groups Depo Progestin® 3ml, Depo Vigestron® 3 ml and Depo Vigestron® 1 ml. The majority of respondents experienced an increase in weight, but still within normal limits, did not have increased blood pressure, increased menstrual blood volume, Pregnancy didn’t occured to all respondents and found no abnormalities in cervical cytology.Conclusion: Contraceptive injection of Depo Progestin® 3 ml, Depo Vigestron® 3 ml dan Depo Vigestron® 1 ml, have used during 12 months can be concluded that those tree kind of contraception were efective, safe and had no side effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".