Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658995›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2022

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.

Susan D Reed, Xiaolei Zhou, Laura Ichikawa, Jennifer L Gatz, Jeffrey F Peipert, Mary Anne Armstrong, Tina Raine-Bennett, Darios Getahun, Michael J Fassett, Debbie A Postlethwaite and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Extended duration of use of long-acting reversible contraceptives: Systematic review.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Susan D ReedDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: reeds@uw.edu.
Xiaolei ZhouRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Laura IchikawaKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jennifer L GatzRegenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jeffrey F PeipertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Mary Anne ArmstrongDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Tina Raine-BennettDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA; Department of Health Systems Science at the Kaiser Permanente, Bernard J Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Darios GetahunDepartment of Health Systems Science at the Kaiser Permanente, Bernard J Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA; Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Michael J FassettDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Debbie A PostlethwaiteDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Jiaxiao M ShiDepartment of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Alex AsiimweBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Federica PisaBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane SchoendorfBayer OY, Espoo, Finland.
Catherine W SaltusRTI Health Solutions, Waltham, MA, USA.
Mary S AnthonyRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
APEX-IUD study team
Kaiser Permanente · USRTI Health Solutions · USBayer (Germany) · DEBayer (Finland) · FIIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USKaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center · USRegenstrief Institute · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes.

methodsWe did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

findingsData from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66).

interpretationAlthough the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted.

fundingBayer AG.

Indexed as

Intrauterine DevicesUterine PerforationCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIncidencePostpartum Period

Identifiers

PMID35658995
OpenAlexW4281666457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.