ArticleOpen access journal of contraception2015
Intrauterine device quo vadis? Why intrauterine device use should be revisited particularly in nulliparous women?
Article in Open access journal of contraception, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods, including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the contraceptive implant, are considered the best methods for preventing unintended pregnancies, rapid repeat pregnancy, and abortion in young women. An opinion paper of 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends Mirena and Paragard for use in nulliparous and adolescent women. However, these IUDs are not designed for young women and are not optimal as they often lead to early discontinuation.
objectiveThis article was written with the objective to respond to the urgent need to improve intrauterine contraception as it is likely that the objectives of LARC will not be met without significant improvement of IUD design. Anatomical variations in size and shape of the uterus are not sufficiently considered, producing harm and suffering, which often lead to early removal of the IUD. PROPOSED PROBLEM SOLVING: The article describes why IUDs should be revisited to meet the challenge of LARC and proposes how to solve these problems. The opinion statement presented here may be considered provocative but is based on hundreds of women with IUD problems who consult or are referred to the practices of the authors of this article due to the disproportion between the IUD and their small uterine cavity. The solution is simple but requires a revision of the current design of IUDs. One-dimensional (longitudinal) IUDs are likely to be the first option. Framed devices with shortened transverse arm and IUDs which adapt to the width of the given uterus are viewed as second best.
conclusionOne of the reasons of the high unintended pregnancy rate in the USA may be the paucity of suitable IUDs. Also, the legal climate in the USA seems to be a problem for developers as many lawsuits have recently been reported. Clinical studies conducted in young nulliparous and adolescent women suggest that IUDs that fit well in the uterine cavity, like a shoe, result in better tolerance, less side effects, and last but not least, higher use continuation rates.
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.