| pubmed-article:10827336 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0036043 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0677582 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0023115 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0814633 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:issue | 3 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2000-6-27 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:abstractText | A total of 104 couples participated in a randomized crossover trial to compare a new baggy condom with a straight-shaft condom produced by the same manufacturer. Participants completed a coital log after using each condom. All couples used five condoms of each type. Among 102 couples who did not report major deviations from the protocol, the breakage rate was eight of 510 (1.6%) for the baggy condom, and six of 510 (1.2%) for the standard condom (rate difference, RD = 0. 4%, 95% confidence interval of the RD, CI = -1.0%; +1.8%). Slippage was reported in 50 baggy condom logs and in 58 standard condom logs; the slippage rate was 50 of 510 (9.8%) for the baggy condom, and 58 of 510 (11.4%) for the standard condom (RD = -1.6%, 95% CI = -5.4%; +2.2%). Slippage was most often partial (<1 inch) and may not indicate condom failure. Severe slippage rates were 11 of 510 (2.2%) for the baggy condom, and 18 of 510 (3.5%) for the standard condom (RD = -1.4%, 95% CI = -3.4%; +0.7%). The findings support the conclusion that the two condoms are equivalent with respect to breakage and slippage. The participants appeared to prefer the baggy condom, suggesting that the new product may be more acceptable to the public than the traditional straight-shaft condoms, and may be easier to use consistently over long time periods. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:keyword | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:month | Mar | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:issn | 0010-7824 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LynchMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MontgomeryMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:CaroGG | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MacalusoMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:BlackwellRR | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:RoarkMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Meinzen-DerrJ... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:StringerE MEM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:volume | 61 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:pagination | 217-23 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2006-11-15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10827336... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:year | 2000 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:articleTitle | Safety and acceptability of a baggy latex condom. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Epidemiology and International Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-2010, USA. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:publicationType | Clinical Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:10827336 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
