187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10958880)
1. Acceptability evaluation of a natural rubber latex, a polyurethane, and a new non-latex condom.
Frezieres RG; Walsh TL
Contraception; 2000 Jun; 61(6):369-77. PubMed ID: 10958880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge.
Rosenberg MJ; Waugh MS; Solomon HM; Lyszkowski AD
Contraception; 1996 Mar; 53(3):141-6. PubMed ID: 8689877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Breakage and acceptability of a polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study.
Frezieres RG; Walsh TL; Nelson AL; Clark VA; Coulson AH
Fam Plann Perspect; 1998; 30(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 9561872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the efficacy of a polyurethane condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Frezieres RG; Walsh TL; Nelson AL; Clark VA; Coulson AH
Fam Plann Perspect; 1999; 31(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 10224546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contraceptive effectiveness of a polyurethane condom and a latex condom: a randomized controlled trial.
Steiner MJ; Dominik R; Rountree RW; Nanda K; Dorflinger LJ
Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Mar; 101(3):539-47. PubMed ID: 12636960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Latex condom breakage and slippage in a controlled clinical trial.
Rosenberg MJ; Waugh MS
Contraception; 1997 Jul; 56(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 9306027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative evaluation of three Tactylon(TM) condoms and a latex condom during vaginal intercourse: breakage and slippage.
Callahan M; Mauck C; Taylor D; Frezieres R; Walsh T; Martens M
Contraception; 2000 Mar; 61(3):205-15. PubMed ID: 10827335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Condom performance during vaginal intercourse: comparison of Trojan-Enz and Tactylon condoms.
Trussell J; Warner DL; Hatcher R
Contraception; 1992 Jan; 45(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 1591918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Safety and acceptability of a baggy latex condom.
Macaluso M; Blackwell R; Carr B; Meinzen-Derr J; Montgomery M; Roark M; Lynch M; Stringer EM
Contraception; 2000 Mar; 61(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 10827336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical breakage, slippage and acceptability of a new commercial polyurethane condom: a randomized, controlled study.
Potter WD; de Villemeur M
Contraception; 2003 Jul; 68(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 12878286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception.
Gallo MF; Grimes DA; Schulz KF
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2003; (2):CD003550. PubMed ID: 12804475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Safety, functionality and acceptability of a prototype polyurethane condom.
Farr G; Katz V; Spivey SK; Amatya R; Warren M; Oliver R
Adv Contracept; 1997 Dec; 13(4):439-51. PubMed ID: 9404553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Pilot study on functional performance and acceptability of two new synthetic adhesive male condoms (Wondaleaf): a randomized cross-over trial.
Ting CY; Ting RS; Lim CJ; King TL; Ting H; Gerofi J
Contraception; 2019 Jul; 100(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 30871936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Randomized crossover trial comparing the eZ.on plastic condom and a latex condom.
Cook L; Nanda K; Taylor D
Contraception; 2001 Jan; 63(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 11257245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of the efficacy of a nonlatex condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Walsh TL; Frezieres RG; Peacock K; Nelson AL; Clark VA; Bernstein L
Perspect Sex Reprod Health; 2003; 35(2):79-86. PubMed ID: 12729137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pilot study of short-term acceptability and breakage and slippage rates for the loose-fitting polyurethane male condom eZ.on bi-directional: a randomized cross-over trial.
Bounds W; Molloy S; Guillebaud J
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2002 Jun; 7(2):71-8. PubMed ID: 12201325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Aspects of comfort and safety of condom. A study of two thousand intercourses among volunteer couples.
Boldsen JL; Jeune B; Madsen PC
Scand J Soc Med; 1992 Dec; 20(4):247-52. PubMed ID: 1475653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception.
Gallo MF; Grimes DA; Lopez LM; Schulz KF
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2006 Jan; 2006(1):CD003550. PubMed ID: 16437459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficacy of thermoplastic elastomer and latex condoms as viral barriers.
Kettering J
Contraception; 1993 Jun; 47(6):559-67. PubMed ID: 8392926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do condom characteristics influence use?
Finger WR
Netw Res Triangle Park N C; 1998; 18(3):23. PubMed ID: 12293532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
