ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2024
Is there a difference in the clinical profile and outcome of women using levonorgestrel IUD for abnormal uterine bleeding and those using it for contraception?: A comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The most common indications for Levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) are contraception and management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). This study was conducted with the aim of exploring the differences in the clinical profile and outcome of women using LNG-IUD for contraception and AUB. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective comparative cross-sectional study of women who underwent LNG-IUD (52 mg) between 2012 and 2017. Their electronic health records were reviewed until the last documented follow-up or until December 2021. Results: A total of 235 women had LNG-IUD with an age range of 21 to 62 years and a mean of (37.98 years±6.76). Of these women, 153/235 (65.1%) had it for contraception and 82/235 (34.89%) had it for AUB. The follow-up was 1-94 months with (mean ± SEM) follow-up for the AUB group of (21.48±2.31) months and for contraception group was (20.74±1.76) months (p-value of 0.80). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the age and body mass index (BMI), where women who had LNG-IUD for AUB were older (mean of 42.54±6.49 years, p-value <0.001) and had higher BMI (31.88±7.52 kg/m Conclusion: this study shows that women using LNG-IUD for the management of AUB are older and have a higher BMI compared with those using it for contraception. AUB women experienced more expulsion compared with the contraception group, but there was no difference between the 2 groups in the overall survival/retention of LNG-IUD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.