ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of the Intrauterine Enabler Device Technique and Conventional Method for Inserting Copper 380 mm² Intrauterine Device: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This pilot study compared the intrauterine enabler device technique with the conventional method for inserting the copper 380 mm² intrauterine device (Cu-IUD), focusing on the fundal placement achieved by both methods. Methods This randomized controlled trial compared the provider and client experiences as well as the technique for inserting the Cu-IUD using the intrauterine enabler device and the conventional no-touch technique. A total of 100 clients underwent Cu-IUD insertion: 50 participants (Group A) received the conventional no-touch technique, while 50 participants (Group B) were treated with the intrauterine enabler device. Results Pain experienced during sounding with the Esa (plastic sound provided with an inserter device) was significantly lower compared to the metallic sound (p < 0.0001). Providers in Group B reported that loading the arms of the Cu-IUD was easy 94% of the time, compared to only 26% in Group A (p < 0.0001). Setting the measurement of uterine depth on the inserter tube was achieved easily every time in Group B and 90% of the time in Group A (p = 0.054). The placement technique for the device was easy every time in Group B, while it was reported as easy 86% of the time in Group A (p = 0.012). Overhandling of the device was significantly easier with the intrauterine enabler (98%) compared to the conventional method (64%) (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the time taken for insertion was significantly shorter with the intrauterine enabler compared to the conventional method (p < 0.0001). Conclusions The insertion of the Cu-IUD using a novel intrauterine enabler device is as safe and effective as the conventional method. The overall experience of insertion is more comfortable for the provider and less painful for the client.
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.