Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38293615›Full record

ArticleInternational medical case reports journal2024

Missed Diagnosis of Perforation and Intraperitoneal Migration of an Intrauterine Device and Its Management in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Case Report.

Akebom Gebremichael, Hale Teka, Kidus Kebede Abadi, Melkamu Siferih, Menberu Moges, Muhudin Arusi, Abel Shiferaw

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in International medical case reports journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Akebom GebremichaelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Peter's Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0009-0008-4480-0823
Hale TekaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Health Science, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-0968-4627
Kidus Kebede AbadiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Riwyet Maternal and Child Health Center, Tigray, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-4494-1614
Melkamu SiferihDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-6468-7708
Menberu MogesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tayo Hospital, Baidoa, Somalia.
Muhudin ArusiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Peter's Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Abel ShiferawDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Dessie, Ethiopia.
Tikur Anbessa Hospital · ETDebre Markos University · ETMekelle University · ETUniversity of Southern Somalia · SO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The intrauterine device is a popular and highly effective form of long-acting reversible contraception. Although generally safe, complications could happen. One of the most serious complications of intrauterine device use is uterine perforation. Risk factors for perforation include, but are not limited to, postpartum period, breastfeeding, levels of experience, and excessive force exerted during insertion. This case is significant because it demonstrates risk factors for uterine perforation, how to handle missing strings, and care in places with little resources. Case Presentation: We discuss the case of a 27-year-old black Ethiopian woman who presented with chronic pelvic pain and had a perforated intrauterine device discovered in the cul-de-sac. The device had been inserted at six weeks postpartum. The client was unable to feel the strings three months after insertion, and a wrong diagnosis of expulsion was made. After one year of insertion, the intrauterine device was located on a plain abdominal radiograph and removed via laparotomy without complications. Conclusion: Although uterine perforation is a rare complication of intrauterine device insertion, special attention should be paid to women with risk factors. In the absence of a witnessed expulsion, assessments and investigations should be carried out before declaring a device expelled. In patients with chronic pelvic pain complaints in the presence of an intrauterine device, perforation and migration outside the uterine cavity should be considered. Abdominal X-rays and laparotomies can be used to find and manage extrauterine migrating devices in environments with limited resources.

Indexed as

intraperitoneal migrationintrauterine devicemissed uterine perforation

Identifiers

PMID38293615
PMCPMC10826545
OpenAlexW4391263879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.