Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42130702›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026

Anchored Versus Non-Anchored Post-Placental Intrauterine Device Placement at Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Norman D Goldstuck, Maarten De Winter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Norman D GoldstuckDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Belville, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6695-032X
Maarten De WinterDr. Dirk Wildemeersch Research Team, Contrel Europe, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0004-6196-7386

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cesarean section (CS) rates are increasing globally. It is an opportune time to place an intrauterine device (IUD) as a long-acting reversible contraceptive as the uterine cavity is directly visible and accessible. Devices placed at this time are often expelled so that anchoring them in place may be a solution. Objective: To determine if displacement rates are lower in anchored placements at CS as the primary outcome. Methods: We searched the English literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized clinical trials (RCTS) comparing anchored versus non-anchored IUD placement post-partum at CS and the Chinese CNKI and Wanfang data studies with a minimum of 30 patients until September 2025. Results: There were six studies that met our inclusion criteria: two each from Egypt and China, one from Indonesia and one from Turkey. In all six studies the displacements were higher initially in the non-anchored group, and this was statistically significant in five studies. Expulsion beyond 6 months and IUD-related problems or other recognized IUD-related problems were not significantly different in those studies with longer follow-up. Conclusion: The time and effort to construct a physical anchor at the time of placement of IUDs at CS appears to be of value. A theoretical mechanism for understanding this benefit is advanced.

Indexed as

anchoredcesarean sectionintrauterine devicelong-acting reversible contraceptionnon-anchoredpost-partum

Identifiers

PMID42130702
PMCPMC13165475

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.