Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796820›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Immediate post-abortal insertion of intrauterine devices.

D Grimes, K Schulz, N Stanwood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D GrimesFamily Health International, P. O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, 27709. dgrimes@fhi.org
K Schulz
N Stanwood
Family Health International 360 · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the safety and efficacy of IUD insertion immediately after spontaneous or induced abortion. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used Medline, Popline, and EMBASE computer searches, supplemented by review articles and contacts with investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought all randomized controlled trials that had at least one treatment arm that involved IUD insertion immediately after an induced abortion or after curettage for spontaneous abortion. We identified 12 trials which described random assignment but excluded three from this review. Two of these revealed unethical research conduct, and one used alternate assignment to treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We evaluated the methodological quality of each report and abstracted information onto a data collection form. We focused on gross discontinuation rates (single-decrement life table analysis) for accidental pregnancy, perforation, expulsion, and pelvic inflammatory disease. We entered the data into RevMan 3.1 for analysis of Peto odds ratios. MAIN

resultsIn large multicenter trials, the TCu 220C device proved superior to either the Lippes Loop D or the Copper 7 IUDs for immediate post-abortal insertion. The Peto OR for discontinuation for pregnancy was 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.7) compared with the Lippes Loop D and 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared with the Copper 7. Expulsions were also significantly less common with the TCu 220C than with the other two IUDs. In single-center trials, the Nova T IUD had a signicantly higher discontinuation rate for pregnancy than did the Multiload 250 (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.0-19.8), while the Nova T had a significantly lower discontinuation rate for pregnancy than did the TCu 200 (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.9). Only one trial compared immediate vs. delayed insertion. In this trial, the performance of the Copper 7 IUD inserted immediately after abortion was inferior to that after interval insertion (remote from pregnancy), although the differences were not statistically significant. Addition of copper sleeves to a Lippes Loop D improved its performance, but addition of a topical hydrogel to a Spring Coil did not offer benefit. Overall, rates of perforation and pelvic inflammatory disease were low. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsInsertion of an IUD immediately after abortion is both safe and practical. This was true for both induced and reported "spontaneous" abortions, many of which may have been induced under clandestine circumstances. IUD expulsion rates were higher after second-trimester abortions than after earlier abortions, so delaying insertion may be advisable after later abortions. Although Copper 7 devices inserted unrelated to pregnancy may perform better than those inserted after abortion, many women who express interest in intrauterine contraception do not return for the scheduled insertion. These women may remain unprotected against unintended pregnancy. However, evidence is inadequate to compare the safety and efficacy of IUD insertion immediately after abortion vs. insertion some weeks later.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, SpontaneousIntrauterine DevicesFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID10796820
OpenAlexW4246139696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.