ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2016
Continued Compliance and Degree of Satisfaction in Nulligravida and Parous Women with Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's knowledge about Intrauterine Device and user satisfaction in Brazil: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Pooled it
- Discontinuation rates of intrauterine contraception due to unfavourable bleeding: a systematic review.BMC women's health · 2022Pooled it
- Outcomes of Intrauterine Device Insertion by Certified Midwives and Obstetric Nurse Practitioners.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
- Barriers and Enablers Influencing Women's Adoption and Continuation of Vaginally Inserted Contraceptive Methods: A Literature Review.Studies in family planning · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the compliance and degree of satisfaction of nulligravida (has not given birth) and parous (had already given birth) women who are using intrauterine devices (IUDs).
methodsA cross-sectional cohort study was conducted comparing nulligravida and parous women who had had an IUD inserted between July 2009 and November 2011. A total of 84 nulligravida women and 73 parous women were included. Interviews were conducted with women who agreed to participate through telephone contact. Statistical analysis was performed with Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney test for numeric variables; Pearson's chi-square test to test associations; and, whenever pertinent, Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. A survival curve was constructed to estimate the likelihood of each woman continuing the use of the IUD. A significance level of 5% was established.
resultsWhen compared with parous women, nulligravida women had a higher education level (median: 12 vs. 10 years). No statistically significant differences were found between the nulligravida and parous women with respect to information on the use of the IUD, prior use of other contraceptive methods, the reason for having chosen the IUD as the current contraceptive method, reasons for discontinuing the use and adverse effects, compliance, and degree of satisfaction. The two groups did not show any difference in terms of continued use of the IUD (p = 0.4).
conclusionThere was no difference in compliance or the degree of satisfaction or continued use of IUDs between nulligravida and parous women, suggesting that IUD use may be recommended for women who have never been pregnant.
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.