ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026
Anchored Versus Non-Anchored Post-Placental Intrauterine Device Placement at Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.