ArticleCureus2025
Silent Migration of an Intrauterine Device into the Peritoneum: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Small bowel necrosis caused by migrated intrauterine device: a rare surgical emergency.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine perforation is an uncommon but potentially adverse outcome of intrauterine device (IUD) placement. It often occurs around the time of insertion and may go unnoticed, though delayed perforation can also present months or years later. Diagnosis is typically suspected when IUD strings are not visualized on vaginal examination and confirmed by imaging demonstrating displacement, perforation, or migration. Definitive management requires device removal. We report the case of a 34-year-old woman with silent migration of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD into the peritoneal cavity. IUD displacement was incidentally noted during a routine Papanicolaou (Pap) test six months after insertion when the strings were not visualized. A pelvic ultrasound done at that time reported an IUD embedded in the uterine wall without serosal perforation. Unfortunately, delayed follow-up, partly due to financial limitations, caused further migration. A repeat ultrasound and pelvic X-ray performed 11 months after insertion confirmed intraperitoneal displacement. She remained asymptomatic throughout this period. The IUD was ultimately retrieved by laparotomy, where it was found in the peritoneum, loosely adherent to the greater omentum. This case underscores the potential for asymptomatic migration of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD, the risks associated with delayed intervention, and the influence of financial and resource limitations on timely diagnosis and optimal management.
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.