↓ Skip to main content

Immediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine device for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Immediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine device for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003036.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Alissa Bernholc, David Hubacher, Gretchen Stuart, Huib AAM Van Vliet

Abstract

Women who want to start intrauterine contraception (IUC) during the postpartum period might benefit from IUC insertion immediately after delivery. Postplacental insertion greatly reduces the risk of subsequent pregnancy and eliminates the need for a return visit to start contraception. Without the option of immediate insertion, many women may never return for services or may adopt less effective contraception. Our aim was to examine the outcomes of IUC insertion immediately after placenta delivery (within 10 minutes), especially when compared with insertion at other postpartum times. We focused on successful IUC placement (insertion), subsequent expulsion, and method use. We searched for trials until 1 April 2015. Sources included PubMed (MEDLINE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the original review, the authors contacted investigators to identify other trials. We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one treatment arm that involved immediate IUC placement (i.e., within 10 minutes of placenta delivery). Comparison arms could have included early postpartum insertion (from 10 minutes postplacental to hospital discharge) or standard insertion (during a postpartum visit). Trials could also have compared different IUC methods or insertion techniques. Delivery may have been vaginal or cesarean. Primary outcomes were placement (insertion), subsequent expulsion, and method use at study assessment. For dichotomous outcomes, we used the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Earlier studies primarily reported results as life-table rates. We aggregated trials in a meta-analysis if they had similar interventions and outcome measures. A sensitivity analysis included studies with moderate or high quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. We included 15 trials. Seven studies reported from 2010 to 2014 were added to eight from the original 2001 review. Newer trials compared immediate postplacental insertion versus early (10 minutes to 48 hours) or standard insertion (during the postpartum visit). Of four with full reports, three were small trials. The other three studies had conference abstracts. The eight early trials examined immediate insertion of different devices or insertion techniques. Most studies were published in the 1980s, some with limited reporting.Our sensitivity analysis included trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate or high quality evidence. Four newer trials comparing insertion times met the inclusion criteria. Two studies used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) after vaginal delivery. The other two trials placed IUC after cesarean section; one used the CuT 380A intrauterine device (IUD) and the other used the LNG-IUS.A pilot trial compared immediate insertion versus early or standard insertion. In groups comparing immediate versus early insertion (N = 30), all women had the LNG-IUS inserted. By six months, the groups had the same expulsion rate and did not differ significantly in IUC use.For immediate versus standard insertion, we conducted meta-analyses of four trials. Insertion rates did not differ significantly between study arms. However, the trial from Uganda showed insertion was more likely for the immediate group, although the estimate was imprecise. In the meta-analysis, expulsion by six months was more likely for the immediate group, but the confidence interval was wide (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.47 to 16.32; participants = 210; studies = 4). IUC use at six months was more likely with immediate insertion than with standard insertion (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.09; participants = 243; studies = 4). Study arms did not differ in use at 3 or 12 months in individual small trials. Recent trials compared different insertion times after vaginal or cesarean delivery. Evidence was limited because studies with full reports generally had small sample sizes. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate; abstracts and older studies had limited reporting. Ongoing trials will add to the evidence, although some are small. Trials of adequate power are needed to estimate expulsion rates and side effects.The benefit of effective contraception immediately after delivery may outweigh the disadvantage of increased risk for expulsion. Frequent prenatal visits during the third trimester provide the opportunity to discuss effective contraceptive methods and desired timing for initiation. Clinical follow-up can help detect early expulsion, as can educating women about expulsion signs and symptoms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 235 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 57 24%
Unknown 41 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 52 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,894,916
of 16,035,943 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,348
of 11,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,422
of 234,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,035,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 234,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.