Rates of removal · patients with
Immediate showed no clear difference in removal by 6 months Rate in percentage compared with delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Use at 6 months Rate in percentage · patients with
Immediate probably leads to higher use at 6 months Rate in percentage compared with delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Pregnancy rate · patients with
Immediate showed no clear difference in pregnancy at six months Rate in percentage compared with delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
upper genital tract infection Rate in percentage · patients with
Immediate showed no clear difference in upper genital tract infection Rate in percentage compared with delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Contraception use (at 6 months): immediate session vs no immediate session · women with postpartum status
The intervention may leads to higher contraception use (at 6 months): immediate session vs no immediate… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 1.62 [1.06, 2.5]
393 participants
Low
Discontinuation due to pregnancy (750 days) · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to pregnancy (750 days) compared with copper 7 (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to expulsion (750 days) · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to expulsion (750 days) compared with copper 7 (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to pelvic inflammation · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to perforation · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to perforation · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to perforation (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross… compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to pelvic inflammation · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to pelvic inflammatory disease (750 days) compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to pregnancy (750 days) · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C probably leads to lower discontinuation rate due to pregnancy (750days) compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discontinuation due to expulsion (750 days) · patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
TCu 220C probably leads to lower discontinuation rate due to expulsion (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross… compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Expulsion by 6 months · postpartum women with desire for contraceptive
The intervention showed no clear difference in expulsion by 6 months (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
IUC use at 6 months · postpartum women with desire for contraceptive
The intervention showed no clear difference in IUC use at 6 months (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Placement per protocol · postpartum women with desire for contraceptive
The intervention showed no clear difference in placement per protocol (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Expulsion by 6 months · postpartum women with desire for contraceptive
The intervention probably leads to higher expulsion by 6 months (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
IUC use at 6 months · postpartum women with desire for contraceptive
The intervention probably leads to higher IUC use at 6 months (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review