4.0 Article Retracted Publication

被撤回的出版物: Post-placental intrauterine device insertion vs puerperal insertion in women undergoing caesarean delivery in Egypt: a 1 year randomised controlled trial (Retracted article. See APR, 2023)

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2020.1823366

Keywords

Delayed postpartum IUD insertion; family planning; intra-caesarean IUD insertion; intrauterine device; IUD expulsion; long-acting reversible contraception; puerperal IUD insertion; unintended pregnancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of the study was to compare 6 month expulsion rates of the copper-bearing intrauterine device (IUD) inserted after delivery of the placenta or at the 6 week postpartum visit in women undergoing caesarean section. Methods A parallel-group randomised trial was conducted in an Egyptian university hospital between February 2016 and December 2018. Participants were randomised to either post-placental IUD insertion or IUD insertion at the 6 week postpartum visit. Participants were followed for 12 months. Primary outcomes were IUD expulsion and the proportion of women using an IUD at 6 months. A secondary outcome was the cumulative pregnancy rate at 12 months. Results Five hundred participants were enrolled in each group. At 6 months the total expulsions were 58/416 (13.9%) in the post-placental group and 4/214 (1.9%) in the puerperal group; IUD use at 6 months was 416/478 (87.0%) in the post-placental group and 214/232 (92.2%) in the puerperal group. Data collected by phone at 12 months showed a higher cumulative pregnancy rate in the puerperal group (84/500, 16.8%) vs the post-placental group (22/500, 4.4%). IUD continuation at 12 months was higher in the post-placental group. Conclusion Participants in the post-placental group had a higher expulsion rate at 6 months, but more IUDs were placed in this group and fewer pregnancies had occurred at 12 months compared with the puerperal group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available