DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« NFL Hopefuls’ New “Smart Shirts” Know Them Inside & Out
After 55 Hours, Pint-Sized Humanoid Emerges as Winner of First Robot Marathon »

NCBI ROFL: And the grossest study award goes to…

Assessing Male Condom Failure and Incorrect Use.

“BACKGROUND: It has not been well established whether common indices of male condom failure are valid predictors of biologically meaningful exposure during condom use. METHODS: To address this gap, the authors compared self-reported condom malfunctions (i.e., breakage and slippage) and incorrect condom practices to 2 following objective measures of failure: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) detected in vaginal swabs collected after condom use and structural integrity of used condoms. The study, conducted in 2000-2001, evaluated 635 male condoms used by 77 women attending an outpatient, reproductive-health clinic in Birmingham, AL. Women reported breakage or slippage for 7.9% of condoms; 3.5% of postcoital swabs had moderate or high levels of PSA; and laboratory testing of used condoms revealed breaks (1.1%) and leaks (2.0%). Self-reported breakage and slippage was associated with moderate/high PSA concentrations in postcoital swabs only when the malfunctions were not accompanied by reports of corrective actions to reduce exposure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-26.2). Defects observed in postcoital laboratory testing were related to PSA detection (aOR, 8.0; 95% CI, 1.5-42.6). Incorrect practices defined on the condom label were frequent, but not all types were associated with semen exposure. Furthermore, other practices not currently label-defined were associated with semen exposure: touching the tip of the penis with his hands (aOR, 6.2; 95% CI, 2.3-17.0) or with her hands (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-72) before donning the condom. CONCLUSIONS: Used correctly, male condoms afforded good protection based on objective measures of failure.”

Photo: flickr/david drexler

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Problems with condoms may be reduced for men taking ample time to apply them.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Accidental condom inhalation.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Those are the [condom] breaks.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

Share

February 25th, 2011 7:00 PM by ncbi rofl in NCBI ROFL, penis friday | 3 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

  • http://figleaf.blogspot.com figleaf

    I don’t want to go all judgmental here but this is actually pretty critical public-health information. I mean, yeah, it sounds a little squicky but if you think about it it’s not even as gross as stuff the average public sanitation worker, sewage-treatment plant operator, or even (yikes!) some restaurant inspectors (yikes!!) have to put up with every day.

    But consider for a moment that on the one hand condoms are the primary contraception method for first-time and short-term relationships. Then reflect on recent findings that statistically speaking condoms are only fractionally more effective than withdrawal for as a contraceptive method. Now look at those reliability statistics and reflect that condoms are the only recommended means of protection from sexually transmitted disease.

    Consider finally that the same knee-squeezing twits who snark about condom-use research are often at greatest risk of using condoms incorrectly when, or perhaps I should say if, they ever find themselves in a situation where condoms are most frequently used. And ask yourself if this line of research, however “gross,” it’s really all that floor-rollingly funny.

    Knowing that there’s a reported 7.9% rate of condoms breaking or slipping off, and that (by rough inference) in half the cases where failure or slippage occurs there’s measurable body fluid intermixture is worth a little mockery.

    Anyway, despite my crabby response to your editorial stance I’m actually glad to have learned about this study through Discoblog. I hope it encourages further research. It’s kind of an important subject. So thanks.

    figleaf

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 dr. frueisata

    How wrong you are, Sir. Condoms ARE by far the most gross thing ever. They are 27.2% grosser than raw sewage when taken from reproductive-health centers. I would provide you with the citation but it would be easier to direct you to look in your pantaloons for an example of inflated and misrepresented statistics.

    Good Day!

  • showmethedata

    figleaf-
    Can you provide a reference for the study you mention that shows that “statistically speaking condoms are only fractionally more effective than withdrawal for as a contraceptive method”?

    PS: I use condoms regularly, think they are important, yet still find this paper funny in a gross sort of way. I guess that makes me a “knee-squeezing twit”, although I’m not exactly sure how it affects my ability to use a condom properly.





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
      • January 2008
      • December 2007
      • November 2007
      • October 2007
      • September 2007
      • August 2007
      • July 2007
      • June 2007
      • May 2007
      • April 2007
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us