Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39868878›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025

Retained versus removed copper intrauterine device during pregnancy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gabriela Oliveira Gonçalves Molino, Ana Clara Felix de Farias Santos, Maírla Marina Ferreira Dias, Ana Gabriela Alves Pereira, Nicole Dos Santos Pimenta, Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Gabriela Oliveira Gonçalves MolinoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2082-2215
Ana Clara Felix de Farias SantosDepartment of Pharmacology, City University of São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0004-0007-0866
Maírla Marina Ferreira DiasDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Campina Grande, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0006-1297-7478
Ana Gabriela Alves PereiraDepartment of Medicine, State University of São Paulo (UNESP), Botucatu, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0003-7023-6254
Nicole Dos Santos PimentaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of the State of do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0001-4527-8546
Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da SilvaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Federal University of Goiás (UFG), Goiânia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2707-9324

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntrauterine devices (IUDs) are highly effective contraceptives. Despite their effectiveness, pregnancies can occur during IUD use, and the management of such cases, particularly when the pregnancy is desired, remains controversial. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes in women who unintentionally conceived while using IUDs and chose to continue their pregnancies. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing women who removed their IUD after pregnancy discovery to those who retained it. The primary outcomes assessed were miscarriage, bleeding during pregnancy, and preterm delivery. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, congenital malformations, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm premature rupture of membranes, and stillbirth. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the binary outcomes using random-effects models to account for variability across studies. The certainty of evidence was measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

resultsFrom 3719 records, 4 cohorts were included. Among the 693 pregnant women analyzed, 402 had their IUD removed, while 291 retained the device. The analysis focused on copper IUDs, with most studies reporting removal during the first trimester and after ultrasound evaluation, although gaps in standardized reporting practices and removal methods were noted. Significant benefits were observed for the IUD-removed group, including reduced incidences of bleeding during gestation (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73; p < 0.01. Moderate certainty of evidence), and miscarriage (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; p < 0.01. Moderate certainty of evidence). There was no significant difference in preterm delivery rates (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.76; p = 0.55).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis, based on data from cohort studies with moderate certainty of evidence, indicates that removing an IUD after pregnancy diagnosis may reduce the odds of miscarriage and bleeding during gestation. However, further high-quality research is needed to evaluate outcomes in pregnancies associated with hormonal IUDs, as well as critical factors such as gestational age at diagnosis, timing of IUD removal, and the position of the gestational sac relative to the device.

Indexed as

Device RemovalIntrauterine Devices, CopperPregnancy ComplicationsAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePremature Birthbirthcontraceptioncopper intrauterine devicematernal‐fetal medicinepregnancyprenatal care

Identifiers

PMID39868878
PMCPMC11981102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.