ArticleInternational journal of women's health2019
Swiss gynecologists' opinions and perceptions concerning the use of intrauterine devices by nulliparous and multiparous women: an online survey study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of a suction cervical stabilizer for IUD insertion: Results from a multicenter post-marketing study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to 1) evaluate the Swiss physicians' attitudes and beliefs on intrauterine device (IUD) use in multiparous and nulliparous women and 2) determine whether the woman's parity was a factor influencing the gynecologists' IUD practice. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe Global Survey questionnaire investigating IUD use was modified and adapted to the Swiss guidelines. A link to the online questionnaire was sent to gynecologists practicing in the French- and German-speaking parts of Switzerland. We defined IUD use as frequent whenever it was prescribed by gynecologists for 25% or more out of all women consulting for contraception.
resultsA total of 299/1,696 gynecologists completed the online questionnaire (17.6%). Frequent IUD prescription was found in 72.9% of multiparous and in 11.8% of nulliparous women. The most frequently reported barriers to IUD use in nulliparous women were as follows: concern over a painful insertion, difficulty of insertion, higher risk of perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease, changes in bleeding pattern, high cost, and risk of extrauterine pregnancy. The presence of such perceived obstacles was associated with less frequent IUD insertion in nulliparous women.
conclusionThe results of this study provide a valuable insight into the attitudes and opinions of Switzerland's gynecologists on the use of IUDs in nulliparous and multiparous women, showing that the women's parity is a factor influencing the physicians' attitudes and opinions. Further health education might help minimize the physicians' attitude discrepancies in IUD prescription to nulliparous and multiparous women.
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.