ArticleIJU case reports2024
Vesicovaginal fistula and bladder calculus formation secondary to long-term retention of an intrauterine device.
Article in IJU case reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although uterine perforation is a rare but serious complication, intrauterine devices are globally popular and effective contraceptive methods. Case presentation: A 76-year-old female patient manifesting symptoms of vaginal leakage and lower abdominal discomfort was admitted to our hospital. Diagnostic imaging identified a vesicovaginal fistula and bladder calculi attributable to perforation of the bladder by an intrauterine device that had been inserted over four decades ago. The patient underwent open surgery for cystolith removal and vesicovaginal fistula repair. Conclusions: If a patient with an intrauterine device complains of bladder stones or ongoing lower urinary tract symptoms, bladder perforation caused by the device should be considered in the differential diagnosis.
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.