336 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12804475)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Nonlatex vs. latex male condoms for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Gallo MF; Grimes DA; Schulz KF
Contraception; 2003 Nov; 68(5):319-26. PubMed ID: 14636934
[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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
Gallo MF; Grimes DA; Schulz KF
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2003; (1):CD003552. PubMed ID: 12535478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception.
Gallo MF; Grimes DA; Schulz KF
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2002; 2002(4):CD003551. PubMed ID: 12519602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Behavioral interventions for improving condom use for dual protection.
Lopez LM; Otterness C; Chen M; Steiner M; Gallo MF
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2013 Oct; (10):CD010662. PubMed ID: 24163112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. School-based interventions for improving contraceptive use in adolescents.
Lopez LM; Bernholc A; Chen M; Tolley EE
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Jun; 2016(6):CD012249. PubMed ID: 27353385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Optical testing of condoms.
Smith SR; Lowrance JL; Tessarotto LA
Contraception; 1999 Jan; 59(1):47-57. PubMed ID: 10342085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Implications of laboratory tests of condom integrity.
Carey RF; Lytle CD; Cyr WH
Sex Transm Dis; 1999 Apr; 26(4):216-20. PubMed ID: 10225589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
