Table 4

Primary and secondary outcomes for condom design interventions

StudyType of interventionOutcomeOR
(95% CI)
High quality trials
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomCondom failure before/during sexOR 1.06 (0.79 to 1.41)
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomCondom failure during sexOR 1.01 (0.70 to 1.47)
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomCondom breakage before or during sexOR 1.02 (0.66 to 1.58)
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomCondom breakage during sex (over specified time period)OR 0.94 (0.49 to 1.80)
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomFull slippage during sexOR 1.01 (0.70 to 1.47)
Golombok103Thicker vs thinner condomPartial slippage during sexOR 1.06 (0.64 to 1.76)
Other trials
Primary outcomes
Steiner104Choice of condomsAny STIOR 1.31 (0.80 to 2.15)
Secondary condom use outcomes
Joanis (C Joanis, M Weaver, C Toroitich-Ruto, et al, unpublished)Choice of condomsProportion of sex protectedSMD −0.135 (−0.250 to −0.020)
Steiner104Choice of condomProportion of sex protectedSMD 0.110 (−0.082 to 0.303)
Benton105Swiss quality seal: Australian standard condomCondom breakage during sexOR 0.86 (0.49 to 1.49)
Benton105Swiss quality seal: Australian standard condomCondom breakage during vaginal sexOR 1.37 (0.65 to 2.89)
Benton105Swiss quality seal: Australian standard condomCondom breakage during anal sexOR 0.20 (0.04 to 0.92)
Renzi106Baggy condom: straight shafted condomCondom breakage during sex (over specified time period)OR 1.34 (0.46 to 3.89)
Renzi106Baggy condom: straight shafted condomSlippage during sexOR 0.85 (0.57 to 1.26)
Renzi106Female reality condom for anal sexBreakage reported by men (receptive partners)OR 1.71 (0.74 to 3.96)
Macaluso107Female reality condom for anal sexSlippage reported by men (receptive partners)OR 2.68 (1.92 to 3.75)
Macaluso107Female reality condom for anal sexSlippage reported by men (insertive partner)OR 34.10 (18.97 to 61.27)