Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35960174›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

Removal of a well-palpable one-rod subdermal contraceptive implant using a dedicated hand-held device or standard technique: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

David Hubacher, Josaphat Byamugisha, Othman Kakaire, Hadija Nalubwama, Karin Emtell Iwarsson, Marte Bratlie, Pai-Lien Chen, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readEquivalence TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04120337 (Safe Access), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% 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.

NCT04120337 nacompletednot on this map

Safe Access: Randomized Trial to Compare Removal Techniques for the One-Rod Subdermal Contraceptive Implant: RemovAid Device Versus Standard Approach

TypeinterventionalSponsorRemovAid ASRan2019 to 2021Enrolled225ConditionsRemoval of a Contraceptive Subdermal ImplantArmsRemovAid device + lidocaine patch, Standard technique + lidocaine injection, RemovAid device + lidocaine injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

David HubacherFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5757-9741
Josaphat ByamugishaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Othman KakaireDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Hadija NalubwamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Karin Emtell IwarssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marte BratlieRemovAid AS, Norway.
Pai-Lien ChenFHI 360, Durham, NC, USA.
Kristina Gemzell-DanielssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6516-1444
Makerere University · UGFamily Health International 360 · USKarolinska University Hospital · SERemovAid (Norway) · NO

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation INV-007571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIs a mechanical hand-held device for removing a single-rod subdermal contraceptive implant safe for implant users? SUMMARY ANSWER: In terms of safety, the device is non-inferior to the standard technique for implant removal. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An easy-to-use device for removing a subdermal contraceptive implant may be helpful in settings where skilled providers are in short supply. Prior to this study, the only report on the world's first hand-held, mechanical device with build-in incisor was a Swedish study using earlier versions of the product. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: From December 2019 to November 2020, we conducted a three-arm, open-label non-inferiority randomized trial involving 225 Ugandan women to assess safety (primary outcome) and measure implant removal efficacy (secondary outcomes) of a newly developed, hand-held device, compared to the standard removal technique. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsWe randomized participants desiring removal of their one-rod contraceptive implant in a 1:1:1 ratio: standard technique/lidocaine injection, new device/lidocaine patch or new device/lidocaine injection. For primary safety endpoints, we examined removal complications and grouped them according to severity. For secondary endpoints on efficacy, we defined three device outcomes: intact implant removed without additional tools (primary), implant removed allowing implant breakage, but without tools (secondary) and implant removed allowing implant breakage and non-scalpel tools (tertiary). We assessed provider feedback on the device and used chi-square tests for all comparisons. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We recruited 225 participants and randomly assigned (n = 75) to each group. For safety, no primary complications occurred in any treatment group, while only one secondary complication occurred in each treatment group (1%). Primary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 85% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 73% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 92% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 79% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P < 0.0001). Tertiary efficacy was 100% (standard technique), 96% (new device/lidocaine patch) and 91% (new device/lidocaine injection) (P = 0.017). Unsuccessful removals with the new device did not hinder subsequent implant extractions with standard back-up tools. In over 90% of the 150 device procedures, providers agreed or strongly agreed that the product is an acceptable alternative to standard removal technique. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We tested a new removal device in the hands of Ugandan nurses who were adept at standard removal techniques; our estimates of removal efficacy may not apply to lower-level providers who arguably may be the prime beneficiaries of this technology. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe study was conducted in a region of the world where the new device could be used to expand access to implant removal services. Intended beneficiaries of the new product are implant users who cannot easily find skilled providers for traditional scalpel-dependent removals and/or users who are intimidated by scalpel procedures, and lower-level providers who can be trained to help deliver services to meet a growing demand. The new device is a safe, acceptable alternative; efficacy was high, but not on par with standard technique. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding for this study was provided by the RemovAid AS of Norway with grants from Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC number 228319), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant INV-007571) and SkatteFUNN. M.B. is founder and former CEO of RemovAid AS, Norway. M.B. holds contraceptive rod remover patents (2012 1307156.8 and 2015), pre-removal test (filed) and shares in RemovAid AS. All of the remaining authors' institutions received payments in the form of contracts to help conduct the study; the funds for these contracts emanated from RemovAid AS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04120337. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 9 October 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 23 December 2019.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Agents, FemaleLevonorgestrelFemaleHumansLidocaineNorwayContraceptive Agents, FemaleLevonorgestrelLidocainedevicefemale contraceptionimplant removalrandomized controlled trialssubdermal implant

Identifiers

PMID35960174
PMCPMC9527454
OpenAlexW4290975451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.