ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus copper intrauterine device: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Appendiceal abscess complicated by mechanical small-bowel obstruction: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge: A case report.Medicine · 2026Article
- A composite biomarker based on early dynamic changes in lactate dehydrogenase and PD-L1 expression enhances outcome prediction for immunochemotherapy in HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Combined Management of a Rare Case of an Incarcerated Intrauterine Device: Case Report and Review of the Literature.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- The gap between prevalence of primary dysmenorrhea and available treatment strategies.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- A giant peritoneal loose body: A case report and updated literature review and data synthesis.Medicine · 2025Review
- Delayed cerebrospinal fluid leak following lumbar interbody fusion caused by floating lamina: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- Bacterial vaginosis: an overlooked STI?Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2025Review
- Cigarette Smoking-Induced Glucose Metabolic Reprogramming in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Review
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: 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
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.