ArticleDrug safety2011
Uterine perforation with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: analysis of reports from four national pharmacovigilance centres.
Article in Drug safety, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraperitoneal Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device in a Patient With a Kidney Stone: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic management of bowel perforation secondary to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device migration: a case report and review of literature.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Sigmoid colon translocation of an intrauterine device misdiagnosed as a colonic polyp: A case report.Medicine · 2018Article
- Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives.Open access journal of contraception · 2016Review
- Prenatal contraceptive counseling and method provision after childbirth.Open access journal of contraception · 2015Review
- Intrauterine contraception after cesarean section and during lactation: a systematic review.International journal of women's health · 2013Review
- Restoration of fertility after removal of extrauterine mirena coil: a case report and review of the literature.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2011Article
- Ineffective Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of a Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System Straying into the Abdominal Cavity.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLevonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUD) are commonly used for contraception and other indications in many countries. National pharmacovigilance centres have been receiving reports from healthcare professionals and patients of uterine perforation associated with the use of these LNG-IUDs.
methodsNational pharmacovigilance centres in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Germany did a search on their adverse drug reaction databases for reports of cases of uterine perforation after insertion of a LNG-IUD received between the introduction of the LNG-IUD onto the market in the late 1990s and 15 July 2007. The number of women affected and patient characteristics such as age, parity and breastfeeding status were examined. In addition, the method of detection of the perforation and the time until discovery of the perforation were analysed.
resultsBetween the introduction of the LNG-IUD onto the market in each country and 15 July 2007, 701 cases of uterine perforation with a LNG-IUD were reported; 8.5% of the perforations were detected at the time of insertion. Abdominal pain and control/check-up visits were the most common events that lead to the detection of a perforation. Of 462 women known to be parous, 192 (42%) were breastfeeding at the time the perforation was discovered.
conclusionsUterine perforations can be asymptomatic and may remain undetected for a long time after IUD insertion. Abdominal pain, control/check-up visits or changes in bleeding patterns are triggers for detection of perforation and should therefore be taken seriously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.