ArticleCureus2026
When Ultrasound and Hysterometry Disagree: Challenges in Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System Placement.
Article in Cureus, 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
Insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) may be technically challenging in women with altered uterine anatomy or difficult cervical access. We report the case of a 24-year-old nulligravid woman with obesity and a subdermal contraceptive implant who sought transition to an LNG-IUS. Pre-procedural transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) demonstrated a retroverted uterus with apparently normal uterine dimensions. However, during insertion, hysterometry measured approximately 4 cm, raising concern regarding a reduced uterine cavity and possible perforation risk. The procedure was interrupted. After cervical priming with misoprostol, following insertion was successfully performed. Follow-up TVUS confirmed correct positioning of the device near the uterine fundus. This case highlights the potential discrepancy between anatomical uterine measurements obtained by ultrasound and functional assessment of the uterine cavity during instrumentation in retroflexed uteri and reinforces the importance of individualized contraceptive counseling and procedural caution in the primary care setting.
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.