SynthesisContraception2016
The safety of intrauterine devices in breastfeeding women: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The safety of intrauterine devices during breastfeeding: an updated systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Combined hormonal versus nonhormonal versus progestin-only contraceptives for postpartum contraception in lactating individuals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Evaluation and Management of Intrauterine Device (IUD) Complications in Ethiopia.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Risk factors of uterine perforation when using contraceptive intrauterine devices.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Association of the Timing of Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion and Breastfeeding With Risks of Intrauterine Device Expulsion.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Migration of intrauterine device caused asymptomatic acute appendicitis: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Barriers to post-placental intrauterine device receipt among expectant minority women.The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception · 2021Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Li Brush Endometrial Samplers for Diagnosing Endometrial Lesions in Women With Intrauterine Devices.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Postpartum intrauterine device placement: a patient-friendly option.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2018Review
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.The New England journal of medicine · 2017Review
- Removing medical barriers to contraception - evidence-based recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.Contraception · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing and copper-bearing (Cu) intrauterine device (IUD) safety among breastfeeding women and, for Cu-IUD use, breastfeeding performance and infant health. STUDY
designSystematic review.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov for articles through January 2016. We included studies of Cu-IUD or LNG-IUD users comparing IUD-specific (perforation, expulsion) and other contraceptive-related (infection, removal/cessation due to bleeding/pain and other adverse events) outcomes for breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. We also included studies of breastfeeding women comparing contraceptive-related outcome for IUD-users vs. other contraceptive-method users. Finally, we included studies comparing breastfeeding outcomes among Cu-IUD users to users of other nonhormonal contraceptives or no contraception.
resultsOf 548 articles identified, 23 (16 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies suggested that the risk of IUD perforation was 6-10 times higher among breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. Seven studies suggested that risks for other adverse events were similar or lower among breastfeeding vs. non-breastfeeding women. Three studies among breastfeeding women found no increased risk of adverse events in IUD users vs. nonusers. Breastfeeding performance and infant growth were similar for Cu-IUD users and users of other nonhormonal methods or no contraception.
conclusionOverall, risks for adverse events among IUD users, including expulsion, pain and removals, were similar or lower for breastfeeding women vs. non-breastfeeding women. Uterine perforation with IUDs, while rare, appeared more frequent among breastfeeding women. No evidence indicated that Cu-IUD use in breastfeeding women influences breastfeeding performance or infant growth.
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.