SynthesisBMJ sexual & reproductive health2025
Non-pharmacologic techniques for interval intrauterine device placement: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 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.
- The WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use 6th edition and the WHO Selected Practice Recommendations 4th edition: update and future direction.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmacologic techniques for interval intrauterine device (IUD) placement.
methodsWe searched various databases from database inception to 15 December 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining non-pharmacologic techniques for IUD placement compared with placebo or pharmacologic techniques. Outcomes of interest were pain experienced with IUD placement, provider ease of placement, need for adjunctive placement measures, placement success, patient satisfaction, side effects and adverse events. We extracted data from included articles, assessed risk of bias, and determined certainty of evidence for all outcomes.
resultsEleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, examining 10 different non-pharmacologic techniques. The risk of bias was high in 10 trials and low in 1 trial. Of 11 RCTs that examined patient pain, two found reduced pain with the Valsalva breathing technique (where women inhaled deeply and held their breath during IUD placement), without tenaculum placement compared with routine care (i.e., use of a tenaculum) (OR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15) or acupuncture compared with routine care (mean difference -1.88; 95% CI -2.72 to -1.04). None of the four trials that assessed ease of IUD placement found differences between study groups. Across nine RCTs, most had high rates of placement success. One study each examined need for cervical dilation and patient satisfaction; the findings were similar between study groups. Overall, few side effects and no adverse events were reported across the studies.
conclusionsNon-pharmacologic techniques like the Valsalva manoeuvre and acupuncture may reduce patient pain with IUD placement (certainty of evidence ranging from moderate to low). However, evidence is limited, and more high-quality trials with larger sample sizes are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024507788.
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.