Cochrane · systematic review · CD001777
Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices
Okusanya, BO, Oduwole, O, Effa, EE · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
Fertility RegulationAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 13 · 100%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Immediate versus delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for
Population: patients with
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Expulsion by 6 months Rate in percentage Immediate vs delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | RR 2.9 [1.25, 6.71] | 3 studies · 878 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Removal by 6 months Rate in percentage Immediate vs delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | RR 2.01 [0.99, 4.06] | 2 studies · 790 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Use at 6 months Rate in percentage Immediate vs delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | RR 1.4 [1.24, 1.58] | 3 studies · 878 participants | Moderate |
Pregnancy at six months Rate in percentage Immediate vs delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | RR 0.37 [0.12, 1.14] | 3 studies · 878 participants | Moderate |
upper genital tract infection Rate in percentage Immediate vs delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | OR 1 [0.32, 3.14] | 3 studies · 878 participants | Moderate |
TCu 220C compared to Lippes Loop for immediate insertion post‐abortion
Population: patients with immediate insertion post‐abortion
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Discontinuation due to perforation (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross rate (Discontinuation in percentages TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop | RR 0.92 [0.13, 6.6] | 2 studies · 2269 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Discontinuation due to pelvic inflammatory disease (750 days) TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop | RR 1.17 [0.29, 4.71] | 2 studies · 2269 participants | Moderate |
Discontinuation rate due to pregnancy (750days) TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop | RR 0.38 [0.2, 0.72] | 2 studies · 2269 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Discontinuation rate due to expulsion (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross rate (Discontinuation in percentages) TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop | RR 0.51 [0.3, 0.88] | 2 studies · 2269 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
TCu 220C compared to Copper 7 for Immediate insertion Post abortion
Population: patients with Immediate insertion Post abortion
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Discontinuation due to pregnancy (750 days) TCu 220C vs Copper 7 | RR 0.44 [0.04, 4.83] | 2 studies · 2274 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Discontinuation due to expulsion (750 days) TCu 220C vs Copper 7 | RR 0.46 [0.14, 1.5] | 2 studies · 2274 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Discontinuation due to pelvic inflammation TCu 220C vs Copper 7 | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2274 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Discontinuation due to perforation TCu 220C vs Copper 7 | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2274 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |