Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495018›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices.

D Grimes, K Schulz, N Stanwood

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The wandering Mirena: laparoscopic retrieval.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) immediately after an abortion has several potential advantages. The woman is known not to be pregnant, a major concern for clinicians. For example, many clinicians refuse to insert an IUD in a woman who is not menstruating. After induced abortion, a woman's motivation to use contraception may be high. However, insertion of an IUD immediately after a pregnancy ends carries potential risks as well. For example, the risk of spontaneous expulsion may be increased due to recent cervical dilation.

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 postabortal insertion. In single-center trials, the Nova T IUD had a significantly 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). The levonorgestrel-releasing device was more effective in preventing pregnancy than was the Nova T. 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. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsInsertion of an IUD immediately after abortion is both safe and practical. IUD expulsion rates appear higher than after interval insertions.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, SpontaneousIntrauterine DevicesFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID15495018
OpenAlexW4214733440

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.