ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2020
Systematic Review of Postfertilization Effects and Potential for Embryo Formation and Loss during the Use of Intrauterine Devices.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2020. 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, 0 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis review sought to evaluate the evidence for embryo formation during intrauterine device (IUD) use, to articulate how often embryo loss occurs in well-designed studies, and to comment on other bodies of literature suggestive of postfertilization mechanisms of action of IUDs.
methodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid databases were searched for English-language studies of markers of pregnancy in IUD users in May 2018. Studies of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) were subjected to quality assessment based on the US Preventive Services Task Force quality tool. Bias of studies assessing pregnancy in other ways was assessed on a study-to-study basis.
resultsIn all, 1,073 studies were identified and 138 were read in detail. Twenty-three studies of β-hCG, 4 studies of direct observation of embryos in fallopian tubes, 2 studies of pregnancy-specific binding globulin (PSBG), and 1 study of heat-shock protein 10 (Hsp10) or chaperonin 10 were included. In all studies considered together, 7.3 percent of IUD users had evidence of fertilization and pregnancy failure. In good-quality studies, 4.5 percent had evidence of fertilization and pregnancy failure. DISCUSSION: There are no randomized trials of embryo formation and loss in IUD users compared with noncontracepting controls. Studies of β-hCG span a large spectrum of quality, but several good-quality studies exist, which support embryo formation and loss in IUD users. Evidence of embryos found in tubes is moderate and evidence of PSBG and Hsp10 elaboration was limited, but these are also concerning for embryo formation and loss.
conclusionThere is good-quality evidence of embryo formation and loss in IUD users. Studies are inconsistent, and the stated conclusions of several papers inaccurately diminish postfertilization evidence of embryo formation. To better assess the rate of embryo loss in IUD users compared with non-users, future research should include well-designed prospective trials and less subjective assessments of embryos in fallopian tubes. SUMMARY: A systematic review was carried out examining the English-language literature in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid databases for evidence of embryo formation and loss during IUD use. In all, 1,073 studies were identified and 138 were read. There are no randomized trials and evidence ranges in quality, but evidence for the embryo formation and loss in 4.5 percent of IUD users exists in good-quality research. Further research is needed to compare embryo loss in IUD users to loss in controls.
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.