• Martin P. Vessey


A steady flow of epidemiologic reports concerned with the benefits and risks of different contraceptive methods began in the mid-1960s and has continued unabated ever since. Christopher Tietze soon realized the need to put the findings in perspective by conducting a “medical audit.” The results of his work, using what he described as a “simple paper and pencil model,” appeared in 1961.1


Alan Pregnan 


  1. 1.
    Tietze C. Mortality with contraception and induced abortion. Studies in Family Planning 1969; 1:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study. Mortality among oral contraceptive users. Lancet 1977; 2:727.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ory HW, Forrest JD, Lincoln R. Making Choices: Evaluating the Health Risks and Benefits of Birth Control Methods. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belsey MA, Russell Y, Kinnear K. Cardiovascular disease and oral contraceptives: a reappraisal of vital statistics data. Family Planning Perspectives 1979; 11:84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mann JI, Vessey MP. Trends in cardiovascular disease mortality and oral contraceptives. Br J Family Planning 1981; 6:99.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiseman RA. Absence of correlation between oral contraceptive usage and cardiovascular mortality. Int J Fertility 1984; 29:198.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vessey MP, Mann JI. Comment on an article ‘absence of correlation between oral contraceptive usage and cardiovascular mortality.’ Int J Fertility 1984; 29:208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sarah L. Tietze 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin P. Vessey
    • 1
  1. 1.OxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations