ReviewContraception2016
The safety of intrauterine contraception initiation among women with current asymptomatic cervical infections or at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections.
Review in Contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024Guideline
- Intrauterine Devices and Sexually Transmitted Infection among Older Adolescents and Young Adults in a Cluster Randomized Trial.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2021Trial
- Trial
- U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024Article
- Knowledge and practices of female students at university of Kara regarding sexually transmitted infections in Togo, 2021.Journal of public health in Africa · 2022Article
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Placement, Continuation, and Removal Rates at an Inner-City Academic Medical Center Clinic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- The use of long-acting reversible contraceptives in Latin America and the Caribbean: current landscape and recommendations.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- Removing medical barriers to contraception - evidence-based recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.Contraception · 2016Article
- Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems for long-acting contraception: current perspectives, safety, and patient counseling.International journal of women's health · 2016Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to assess risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) among women with current asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or who are at high risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), comparing those who have a copper-bearing (Cu-) or levonorgestrel (LNG-) intrauterine device (IUD) placed with women who do not. STUDY
designWe searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles from January 1984 through January 2016 addressing our objective. We assessed study quality using the United States Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system.
resultsOur search strategy yielded 2220 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Two studies provided direct evidence of PID rates in women with undiagnosed gonococcal or chlamydial (GC/CT) infection or at high risk for STIs initiating IUDs versus other contraceptive methods (level II-2, fair to poor), and neither study found a difference. Eight studies provided indirect evidence (II-2 to II-3, fair to poor). One study found no difference in PID rates between initiators of Cu- versus LNG-IUDs. Five studies compared algorithms based on patient factors with laboratory GC/CT screening to predict cervical infection. Based on likelihood ratios, none of these algorithms adequately identified women at high risk of asymptomatic cervical infection who should not undergo IUD placement. Two studies compared IUD placement on the same day as STI screening with delayed placement after screening and found no difference in PID rates.
conclusionLimited evidence suggests that IUD placement does not increase the risk of PID compared with no IUD placement among women with asymptomatic undiagnosed cervical infection or at high risk of STIs. Algorithms based on patient characteristics to identify women with asymptomatic GC/CT may be overly restrictive, leading to missed opportunities for IUD initiation. Historical concerns about higher PID risk among women at risk for STIs who use IUDs may not be relevant with modern devices and STI screening and treatment practices.
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.