Contraception
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 15-18, January 2003

Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception: a Cochrane review

  • M.A. Kuyoh

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
  • ,
  • C. Toroitich-Ruto

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
  • ,
  • D.A. Grimes

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-919-544-7040; fax: +1-919-544-7261.
  • ,
  • K.F. Schulz

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
  • ,
  • M.F. Gallo

      Affiliations

    • Family Health International, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

Received 19 August 2002; accepted 4 September 2002.

Abstract 

The contraceptive vaginal sponge was developed as an alternative to the contraceptive diaphragm. Unlike the diaphragm, the sponge can be used for more than one coital act within 24 h without the insertion of additional spermicide, and it does not require fitting or a prescription from a physician. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared the vaginal contraceptive sponge with the diaphragm used with a spermicide in order to evaluate the efficacy and continuation rates of the two devices. The sponge was statistically significantly less effective in preventing overall pregnancy than was the diaphragm in the two trials that met our inclusion criteria. The 12-month cumulative life table termination rates per 100 women for overall pregnancy were 17.4 for the sponge versus 12.8 for the diaphragm in the larger US trial, and 24.5 for the sponge and 10.9 for the diaphragm in the UK trial. Similarly, discontinuation rates at 12 months were higher with the sponge than with the diaphragm [odds ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.6]. Allergic-type reactions were more common with the sponge in both trials, although the frequency of discontinuation for discomfort differed in the two trials. Other randomized controlled trials will be needed to resolve the role of spermicides in preventing sexually transmitted infections or in causing adverse effects.

Keywords: Sponge, Diaphragm, Barrier contraception, Systematic review

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0010-7824(02)00434-1

Contraception
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 15-18, January 2003