| Title |
Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/11591290-000000000-00000 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Stoddard, Colleen McNicholas, Jeffrey F. Peipert |
| Abstract |
Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the subdermal implant. These methods are the most effective reversible methods of contraception, and have the additional advantages of being long-lasting, convenient, well liked by users and cost effective. Compared with other user-dependent methods that increase the risk of noncompliance-related method failure, LARC methods can bring 'typical use' failure rates more in line with 'perfect use' failure rates. LARC methods are 'forgettable'; they are not dependent on compliance with a pill-taking regimen, remembering to change a patch or ring, or coming back to the clinician for an injection. LARC method failure rates rival that of tubal sterilization at <1% for IUDs and the subdermal implant. For these reasons, we believe that IUDs and implants should be offered as first-line contraception for most women. This article provides a review of the LARC methods that are currently available in the US, including their effectiveness, advantages, disadvantages and contraindications. Additionally, we dispel myths and misconceptions regarding IUDs, and address the barriers to LARC use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 249 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 13% |
| Researcher | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 53 | 21% |
| Unknown | 59 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 15% |
| Unknown | 70 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#627,623
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#50
of 3,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,263
of 289,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#8
of 1,070 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,070 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.