Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39610901›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus copper intrauterine device: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Pan Liu, Jiahao Meng, Yilin Xiong, Yumei Wu, Yifan Xiao, Shuguang Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Bacterial vaginosis: an overlooked STI?Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
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

6 authors.

Pan LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Jiahao MengDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yilin XiongDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yumei WuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yifan XiaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Shuguang GaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Globally, approximately 19.4% of women of reproductive age use intrauterine contraception, encompassing both copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs). Despite current guidelines endorsing intrauterine contraception as a primary method, there remains debate regarding device selection. Notably, the lack of data regarding reasons for discontinuation has limited previous meta-analyses. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the potential differences between intrauterine devices using available multinational data, thereby providing a basis for global policy and healthcare services. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for primary studies published from inception to January 13, 2024, with no language or geographic restrictions. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496400). We included only randomized controlled trials comparing Cu-IUDs and LNG-IUDs. Data extraction was independently conducted by two reviewers, with unresolved discrepancies referred to a third senior reviewer for consultation. The primary outcome was pregnancy, with secondary outcomes encompassing continuation, reasons for discontinuation, expulsion, satisfaction, and other adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE framework. Findings: An analysis of 20 trials showed that compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with lower risks of pregnancy (Risk Ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.39), ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.47), discontinuation due to increased bleeding (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85), increased bleeding (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.7), heavy bleeding (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.75), and dysmenorrhea (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48), but they carried a higher risk of discontinuation due to amenorrhea (RR 21.05, 95% CI 8.83-50.00). When comparing LNG (52 mg) IUD with copper (380 mm Interpretation: LNG-IUDs and Cu-IUDs are both highly effective contraceptive methods. Compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with a lower risk of pregnancy and adverse reactions. However, LNG-IUDs carry a higher risk of amenorrhea. When recommending contraceptive methods, healthcare providers should fully inform patients of these potential risks and consider patient preferences. Funding: The research was funded by Hunan Provincial Natural Foundation of China (2021JJ30040), the National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University (2021KFJJ06), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81672225).

Indexed as

ContraceptionCopperIUDLevonorgestrelPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39610901
PMCPMC11602564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.