510 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15612832)
1. Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK.
Varney SJ; Guest JF
Pharmacoeconomics; 2004; 22(17):1141-51. PubMed ID: 15612832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline.
Mavranezouli I;
Hum Reprod; 2008 Jun; 23(6):1338-45. PubMed ID: 18372257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Economic analysis of long-term reversible contraceptives. Focus on Implanon.
Phillips CJ
Pharmacoeconomics; 2000 Feb; 17(2):209-21. PubMed ID: 10947343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Real-world cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implants compared to long-term and short term reversible contraceptive methods in France.
Linet T; Lévy-Bachelot L; Farge G; Crespi S; Yang JZ; Robert J; Fabron C
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2021 Aug; 26(4):303-311. PubMed ID: 33960248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Choice of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, etonogestrel implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception after aspiration abortion.
Steinauer JE; Upadhyay UD; Sokoloff A; Harper CC; Diedrich JT; Drey EA
Contraception; 2015 Dec; 92(6):553-9. PubMed ID: 26093190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Long-acting reversible contraceptive acceptability and unintended pregnancy among women presenting for short-acting methods: a randomized patient preference trial.
Hubacher D; Spector H; Monteith C; Chen PL; Hart C
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 216(2):101-109. PubMed ID: 27662799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel subdermal implants. Comparison with other contraceptive methods available in the United States.
Ashraf T; Arnold SB; Maxfield M
J Reprod Med; 1994 Oct; 39(10):791-8. PubMed ID: 7837126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prolonged use of the etonogestrel implant and levonorgestrel intrauterine device: 2 years beyond Food and Drug Administration-approved duration.
McNicholas C; Swor E; Wan L; Peipert JF
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 216(6):586.e1-586.e6. PubMed ID: 28147241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Subdermal contraceptive implants.
Peralta O; Diaz S; Croxatto H
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol; 1995 Jun; 53(1-6):223-6. PubMed ID: 7626459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year.
Bellows BK; Tak CR; Sanders JN; Turok DK; Schwarz EB
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 May; 218(5):508.e1-508.e9. PubMed ID: 29409847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.
Power J; French R; Cowan F
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Jul; 2007(3):CD001326. PubMed ID: 17636668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A prospective comparison of bone density in adolescent girls receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera), levonorgestrel (Norplant), or oral contraceptives.
Cromer BA; Blair JM; Mahan JD; Zibners L; Naumovski Z
J Pediatr; 1996 Nov; 129(5):671-6. PubMed ID: 8917232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparative study of one-year weight gain among users of medroxyprogesterone acetate, levonorgestrel implants, and oral contraceptives.
Moore LL; Valuck R; McDougall C; Fink W
Contraception; 1995 Oct; 52(4):215-9. PubMed ID: 8605778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Postpartum contraception: initiation and effectiveness in a large universal healthcare system.
Brunson MR; Klein DA; Olsen CH; Weir LF; Roberts TA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jul; 217(1):55.e1-55.e9. PubMed ID: 28257962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The cost-effectiveness of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (Implanon) relative to oral contraception in a community setting.
Lipetz C; Phillips CJ; Fleming CF
Contraception; 2009 Apr; 79(4):304-9. PubMed ID: 19272500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-dose contraceptive levonorgestrel intrauterine system in Sweden.
Henry N; Hawes C; Lowin J; Lekander I; Filonenko A; Kallner HK
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2015 Aug; 94(8):884-90. PubMed ID: 26015090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice.
Paul R; Huysman BC; Maddipati R; Madden T
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 222(4S):S884.e1-S884.e9. PubMed ID: 31838124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prospective multicentre study comparing levonorgestrel implants with a combined contraceptive pill: final results.
Kirkman RJ; Bromham DR; O'Connor TP; Sahota JE
Br J Fam Plann; 1999 Jul; 25(2):36-40. PubMed ID: 10454652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Extended use up to 5 years of the etonogestrel-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant: comparison to levonorgestrel-releasing subdermal implant.
Ali M; Akin A; Bahamondes L; Brache V; Habib N; Landoulsi S; Hubacher D;
Hum Reprod; 2016 Nov; 31(11):2491-2498. PubMed ID: 27671673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Levonorgestrel subdermal implants. Contraception on trial.
Frank ML; DiMaria C
Drug Saf; 1997 Dec; 17(6):360-8. PubMed ID: 9429835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
