ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2022
Successful Provision of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception in a Sexual Health Clinic.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2022. 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen who attend sexual health clinics are at high risk for sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy. Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) are very effective contraceptive methods, but the provision of LARC in such clinics is not well described in the literature.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of women who presented to Denver Sexual Health Clinic for any reason and received family planning services between April 1, 2016, and October 31, 2018. We assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with contraceptive method received and conducted a subanalysis of those with intrauterine device (IUD) insertions on the same-day versus delayed insertion. Among those who received an IUD, we assessed rates of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) 30 days after insertion.
resultsOf the 5064 women who received family planning services in our clinic, 1167 (23%) were using a LARC method at the time of their visit. Of the 3897 who were not using a LARC, fewer women, 12.6%, chose LARC (IUD and progestin implant), compared with 33.3% who chose new short-acting reversible contraceptives. Further analysis of the 270 IUD initiators revealed 202 (74.8%) received the IUD on the same day, whereas 68 (25.2%) had delayed IUD insertion. There were 9 incident cases of gonorrhea or chlamydia in those who received same-day IUD and 1 incident case among those who had delayed IUD insertion. There were no cases of PID at 30 days after insertion in either group.
conclusionsStudy findings support IUD provision in a sexual health clinic on the day of initial visit without increased risk of PID.
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.