ArticleBMC women's health2024
Risk factors of uterine perforation when using contraceptive intrauterine devices.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small bowel necrosis caused by migrated intrauterine device: a rare surgical emergency.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Strangulated Small Bowel Obstruction Caused by a Migrated Ring-Shaped Intrauterine Device: Two Case Reports and a Literature Review.The American journal of case reports · 2026Review
- Laparoscopic removal of a migrated copper IUD causing pelvic abscess: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- An asymptomatic postmenopausal uterine perforation with bilateral embedment by a V-shaped intrauterine device: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Removal of an incarcerated intrauterine device reaching the serosal surface of the uterus by hysteroscopy alone: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrauterine devices (IUDs) are one of the most popular methods of contraception, and uterine perforation has been presented among the most significant potential complications of IUD use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk factors of uterine perforation when using an IUD.
methodsIn this retrospective study, all 164 women who have referred to Al-Zahra hospital in Tabriz- Iran to remove the retained IUD from March 2018 to March 2021, were investigated in two groups. Patients in case group underwent surgery to remove the dislocated device and management of its complications. In control group, the devices were removed using a Novak or ring forceps with or without hysteroscopy with no uterine perforation. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. P-Value was obtained for qualitative data via Fisher's exact test and Chi-Squared test and for quantitative data via Mann-Whitney U test and independent T-test.
resultsThe mean age of patients in the groups with or without uterine perforation was 30.57 and 36.78 years respectively (P = 0.01). The frequency of two or more parities among patients with uterine perforation was higher than other patients (P = 0.13). Ultrasound study before (p = 0.037) and after (p = 0.007) IUD insertion was higher among patients without uterine perforation. The less inexperience of healthcare providers (P = 0.013) and lack of scheduled follow-up visits after the IUD insertion (P < 0.001), are the other important factors affecting the uterine perforation. Abdominal pain was the most common compliant of uterine perforation (P < 0.001) and laparoscopy was the most used surgery to remove the misplaced device.
conclusionUterine perforation can be effectively prevented by hiring experienced health care providers and appropriate patient selection.
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.