Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12535449›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices.

D Grimes, K Schulz, H Van Vliet, N Stanwood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Bridging the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of health care providers.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2010
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

D GrimesFamily Health International, P. O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. dgrimes@fhi.org
K Schulz
H Van Vliet
N Stanwood

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) immediately after delivery is appealing for several reasons. The woman is known not to be pregnant, her motivation for contraception may be high and the setting may be convenient for both the woman and her provider. However, the risk of spontaneous expulsion may be unacceptably high.

objectivesTo assess the efficacy and feasibility of IUD insertion immediately after expulsion of the placenta. Our a priori hypothesis was that this practice is safe but associated with higher expulsion rates than interval IUD insertion. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used MEDLINE, Popline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register computer searches, supplemented by review articles and contact with investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought all randomized controlled trials that had at least one treatment arm that involved immediate post-partum (within ten minutes of placental expulsion) insertion of an IUD. Comparisons could include different IUDs, different insertion techniques, immediate vs. delayed post-partum insertion, or immediate vs. interval insertion (unrelated to pregnancy). Studies could include either vaginal or cesarean deliveries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We evaluated the methodological quality of each report and sought to identify duplicate reporting of data from multicenter trials. We abstracted data onto data collection forms. Principal outcome measures included pregnancy, expulsion, and continuation rates. Because the trials did not have uniform interventions, we were unable to aggregate them in a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsWe found no randomized controlled trials that directly compared immediate post-partum insertion with either delayed post-partum or interval insertion. Modifications of existing devices, such as adding absorbable sutures or additional appendages, did not appear beneficial. Most studies showed no important differences between insertions done by hand or by instruments. Lippes Loops and Progestasert devices did not perform as well as did copper devices. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsImmediate post-partum insertion of IUDs appeared safe and effective, though direct comparisons with other insertion times were lacking. Advantages of immediate post-partum insertion include high motivation, assurance that the woman is not pregnant, and convenience. However, expulsion rates appear to be higher than with interval insertion. The popularity of immediate post-partum IUD insertion in countries as diverse as China, Mexico, and Egypt support the feasibility of this approach. Early follow-up may be important in identifying spontaneous IUD expulsions.

Indexed as

Intrauterine DevicesPostpartum PeriodFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

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.