ArticleContraception: X2023
Clinical outcomes of intrauterine device insertions by newly trained providers: The ECHO trial experience.
Article in Contraception: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The safety of intrauterine devices during breastfeeding: an updated systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward contraceptive use among Syrian women attending the Syrian family planning association clinics in Damascus and Rif Dimashq: a cross-sectional study.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Provider bias and family planning in Upper Egypt: a simulated client approach.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the rates of failed insertion, expulsion, and perforation when intrauterine device (IUD) insertions were done by newly trained clinicians, and to examine factors that may affect these outcomes. Study design: We evaluated skill-based outcomes following IUD insertion at 12 African sites in a secondary analysis of the Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) randomized trial. Before trial initiation, we provided competency-based IUD training to clinicians and offered ongoing clinical support. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to examine factors associated with expulsion. Results: Among 2582 IUD acceptors who underwent first attempted IUD insertion, 141 experienced insertion failure (5.46%) and seven had uterine perforation (0.27%). Perforation was more common among breastfeeding women within three months postpartum (0.65%) compared with non-breastfeeding women (0.22%). We recorded 493 expulsions (15.5 per 100 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.1─16.9): 383 partial and 110 complete. The risk of IUD expulsion was lower among women older than 24 years (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50─0.78) and may be higher among nulliparous women. (aHR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97─2.82). Breastfeeding (aHR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72─1.22) had no significant effect on expulsion. IUD expulsion rate was highest during the first three months of the trial. Conclusions: IUD insertion failure and uterine perforation rates in our study were comparable to those reported in the literature. These results suggest that training, ongoing support, and opportunities to apply new skills were effective in ensuring good clinical outcomes for women receiving IUD insertion by newly trained providers. Implications: Data from this study support recommendations to program managers, policymakers, and clinicians that IUDs can be inserted safely in resource-constrained settings when providers receive appropriate training and support.
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.