Trial reportContraception2015
Acceptability of randomization to levonorgestrel versus copper intrauterine device among women requesting IUD insertion for contraception.
Trial report in Contraception, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-year pregnancy and continuation rates after placement of levonorgestrel or copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a randomized controlled trial.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Trial
- Switching and discontinuation of participant-masked randomization to a copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine device when presenting for emergency contraception.Contraception · 2023Trial
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAssess feasibility of randomizing women to intrauterine device (IUD) type. STUDY
designWomen enrolling in a 2-month study who desired an IUD for contraception were randomized 1:1 to receive a levonorgestrel-releasing 52-mg IUD (LNG-IUD) or copper T380A IUD (Cu-IUD), understanding they could switch IUD type at the end of the study.
resultsRandomization to IUD type was acceptable to 54/55 (98%) women who screened. All 32 enrolled participants completed follow-up. Two women exchanged their IUD (Cu-IUD to LNG-IUD), and two requested removal (one LNG-IUD, one Cu-IUD). Overall, 88% continued their assigned IUD.
conclusionsRandomization to IUD type is feasible, and few women change their IUD.
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.