ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
An in-vivo study of the safety of copper-containing intrauterine devices in 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate whether women with copper-containing intrauterine devices (Cu-IUD), currently listed as MR conditional, can safely undergo 3.0 Tesla (3 T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methods73 women, age 18-54 years old, with a Cu-IUD who were undergoing MRI for any reason were included consecutively. Pre- and post-MRI standard pelvic ultrasound examinations were completed to determine the appropriate pre- and post-MRI positioning of the Cu-IUD. Displaced IUDs were defined by IUD crossbars not in the fundal portion of the endometrial cavity, a visualized tip in the mid or lower uterus, any part of the device located in the cervical canal or outside of the endometrial canal, a fractured device, or a non-visualized IUD. Additionally, a questionnaire was completed by participants to determine the level of pre- and post-MRI pelvic pain.
resultsThere were zero observed displaced Cu-IUDs on post-MRI pelvic ultrasounds (p = 0/70, 95% CI 0, .043). Three participants were dropped from the study due to malpositioned IUDs on pre-MRI pelvic ultrasound. Six patients reported new or worsening pelvic pain/discomfort during or after their MRI examination.
conclusionOur results suggest that performing 3 T MRI using a low SAR setting does not cause displacement of Cu-IUDs, with zero out of 70 patients demonstrating IUD displacement.
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.