ArticlePloS one2018
Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices: a comprehensive pictorial review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- An in-vivo study of the safety of copper-containing intrauterine devices in 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Influence of ear tags on the results of body composition analysis in mice.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2024Article
- A multimodality review of gynecologic devices in the pelvis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Case series demonstrating in vivo MR safety of stainless steel (Chinese/Ring) IUDs.BJR case reports · 2022Article
- Recent advances in bioelectronics chemistry.Chemical Society reviews · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe paucity of safety information on intrauterine devices (IUD) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations is clinically relevant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the MRI safety of clinically used IUDs composed of copper/gold and stainless steel at 1.5T and 3.0T. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe assessed and compared the displacement force, torque effects, presence of imaging artifacts and heating of IUDs composed of copper/gold (western IUDs) and stainless steel (China) on 1.5 and 3.0T MRI systems.
resultsGold/Copper IUDs can show small deflection angles of 7° ± 7° in the worst-case field gradient of 40T/m (equivalent to magnetic force of 0.5 mN), while the stainless steel IUD experienced significant magnetic force and deflection (Force > 7.5 N; deflection angle 90° ± 1°). Manual rotation and suspension method show no torque effects on gold/copper IUDs but high torque effects were observed by manual rotation on the stainless steel IUD. Heating measurements showed a temperature increase (rescaled to a wbSAR of 4 W/kg) of 1.4°C at 1.5T / 3.4°C at 3.0 T (stainless steel IUD), 3.2°C at 1.5 T / 3.8°C at 3 T (copper/gold IUD), 3.3°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 1), 3.8°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 2). The visible imaging artifacts of the copper and gold IUDs at 3 T MRI reach a diameter of 4 mm ± 1 mm, while the stainless steel IUD resulted in artifacts measuring 200mm ± 10 mm when using gradient echo pulse sequences.
conclusionsStandard IUDs (copper/gold) can be considered as conditional for MR safety at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, demonstrating at wbSAR up to 4W/kg and a magnetic field gradient of up to 40T/m with minimal imaging artifacts. The stainless steel IUD, however, induces unacceptable artifacts and is potentially harmful to patients during MRI due to high magnetic dislocation forces and torque (MR unsafe).
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.