Stiftung Warentest has taken a close look at contraceptive pills, plasters, IUDs and other contraceptives - many preparations do not do well.
Berlin - The first contraceptive pill came onto the market almost 60 years ago - meanwhile the range of contraceptives, especially for women, has grown considerably.
Time for Stiftung Warentest to compare different medical devices in the field of contraception.
A big conclusion stands above the test series: The right type of contraception is "also dependent on age, previous illnesses, relationship status and lifestyle" and should be individually tailored to the contraceptive person and their needs.
Overall, the team included specialist literature as well as corresponding studies and investigations in the assessment - and this was not particularly good for some methods.
Contraceptives at Stiftung Warentest: Only 58 out of 141 suitable
In comparison, hormonal contraceptive measures, variants that work with mechanical barriers and natural methods were discussed.
Out of a total of 141 individual preparations and products examined, the reprocessing team ultimately identified 58 as suitable - with the losers in the ranking it was mostly not the effectiveness that was the problem, but the tolerability.
Above all, two methods were in the foreground as suitable: Certain types of contraceptive pill as well as usable IUDs from different manufacturers and types.
The IUDs, which provide protection through hormones or copper, "have a long-term effect and are especially recommended for women who have already given birth", according to Stiftung Warentest - the possible side effects include pelvic inflammation, which could affect fertility.
In the case of the pill, whose side effects include an increased risk of thrombosis, i.e. blood clots, preparations with the lowest possible estrogen content and the gestagens levonorgestel, norethisterone or norgestimate are recommended - they increase the risk of thrombosis a little less than, for example, the progestins desogestrel, Dienogest, drospirenone or gestodene.
Condoms and the diaphragm, combined with a gel, are also rated as suitable if they are used with practice and responsibly.
Contraceptives in comparison: These methods received negative ratings
For example, the so-called three-month injection, hormone implants, the contraceptive ring and the hormone patch did not fare so well.
In relation to the implant, the experts cite problems with removal as a counter-argument: the rod that is inserted under the skin and releases hormones there, sometimes migrates uncontrollably from the original site into the body and then has to be tracked down again.
The ring and plaster work similarly to the pill, but they have a higher risk of thrombosis than the pill preparations.
The patch can also cause skin irritation and the vaginal ring is also at risk of inflammation.
The three-month injection, which, among other things, causes a change in bone density as a side effect, is not recommended for standard contraception: the risk of thrombosis cannot be adequately assessed here; according to the report, it takes months to years after stopping a pregnancy succeed.
In principle, the following applies to all evaluated methods: Comprehensive advice and support from medical professionals, such as the respective gynecologist, should be used when making an individual decision.
(eu)
Just recently, Stiftung Warentest also tested FFP2 masks from various manufacturers.
A direct comparison of the risk of thrombosis of the pill with the thrombosis cases after Astrazeneca vaccinations is, according to experts, clearly too short-sighted.
With our brand new consumer newsletter you will always stay up to date on consumer information and product recalls.
List of rubric lists: © imago stock & people
