Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31919240›Full record

SynthesisBMJ sexual & reproductive health2020

Copper intrauterine device use and HIV acquisition in women: a systematic review.

Philip C Hannaford, Angeline Ti, Tsungai Chipato, Kathryn M Curtis

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hormonal contraception for women at risk of HIV infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024
    Article
  5. Contraceptive effects on the cervicovaginal microbiome: Recent evidence including randomized trials.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Philip C HannafordCentre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK p.hannaford@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2588-1006
Angeline TiDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Tsungai ChipatoUniversity of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Kathryn M CurtisDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5892-3786
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women.

methodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library between database inception and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using an unspecified IUD or Cu-IUD compared with non-hormonal or no contraceptive users, or hormonal contraceptive users. We extracted information from included studies, assessed study quality, and summarised study findings.

resultsFrom 2494 publications identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), judged "informative with few limitations", found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk between users of the Cu-IUD and either intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) or levonorgestrel implant. One observational study, deemed "informative but with important limitations", found no statistically significant difference in HIV incidence among IUD users compared with women who had tubal ligation or who were not using any contraception. Another "informative but with important limitations" observational study found no difference in HIV incidence between Cu-IUD users and DMPA or norethisterone enanthate injectable, or implant users. An RCT considered "unlikely to inform the primary question" also found no difference in HIV risk between Cu-IUD and progestogen-only injectable users. Findings from the other three "unlikely to inform the primary question" cohort studies were consistent with the more robust studies suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among Cu-IUD users.

conclusionThe collective evidence, including that from a large high-quality RCT, does not indicate an increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of Cu-IUDs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultContraception BehaviorFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansIncidenceIntrauterine Devices, Copperhuman immunodeficiency virusintrauterine devices

Identifiers

PMID31919240
PMCPMC6978563
OpenAlexW3000440903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.