Table 1 Summary of publications included in the review
References | Country | Study design | Patients, N | Intervention(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LNG-IUD | ||||
Shimoni et al. [25] | USA | Prospective comparative observational study | 131 | LNG-IUD, 13.5 mg (Skyla) early vs late menstrual cycle insertion |
Teal et al. [14] | USA | Single-arm phase III study, ACCESS IUS | 1751a | LNG-IUD, 52 mg (Liletta) |
Darney et al. [11] | USA | Secondary analysis of phase III study, ACCESS IUS | 1751a | LNG-IUD, 52 mg (Liletta) |
Schreiber et al. [13] | USA | Secondary analysis of phase III study, ACCESS IUS | 1751a | LNG-IUD, 52 mg (Liletta) |
Eisenberg et al. [12] | USA | Single-arm phase III study, ACCESS IUS | 1751a | LNG20-IUD, 52 mg (Liletta) |
Neri et al. [26] | Italy | Prospective single-arm | 25 | LNG-IUD, 6 µg/day (Jaydess) |
Vaitsiakhovich et al. [27] | Germany | Analysis of data from an observational study and RCT | 1860, 1607 | LNG-IUD, 52 mg (Mirena) |
Carvalho et al. [28] | Brazil | Prospective, observational, single-arm | 231 | LNG-IUD, 20 µg/day (Mirena) |
Korjamo et al. [19] b | Finland | RCT | 159 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) immediate vs late insertion following MTOP |
Korjamo et al. [20] b | Finland | RCT (same study as Korjamo et al. [20]) | 267 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) immediate vs late insertion following MTOP |
Cristobal et al. [29] | Spain | Prospective, observational, single-arm | 201 | LNG-IUD, 52 mg |
Whitaker et al. [30] | USA | RCT | 42 | LNG-IUD, immediate vs late insertion following caesarean delivery |
Stoegerer-Hecher et al. [32] | Austria | Cross-sectional | 415 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) |
Gemzell-Danielsson et al. [15]c | Finland, France, Ireland and Sweden | Prospective single-arm | 204 | LNG-IUD |
Heikinheimo et al. [16]c | Finland, France, Ireland and Sweden | Prospective, single-arm (same study as Gemzell-Danielsson et al. [15]) | 204 | LNG-IUD |
Armitage et al. [31] | UK | Prospective, observational | 100 | LNG-IUD |
Nelson et al. [18]d | Multinational | RCT | 1432 vs 1452 | LNG-IUD 13.5 mg vs 19.5 mg |
Gemzell-Danielsson et al. [17] d | Multinational | Post-hoc analysis of phase III RCT (Nelson et al. [18]) | 1432 vs 1452 | LNG-IUD 13.5 mg vs 19.5 mg |
Cu-IUD | ||||
Yaron et al. [33] | Switzerland | Retrospective, observational | 207 | Cu-IUD, Ballerine MIDI |
Sanders et al. [34] | USA | Prospective, longitudinal, observational | 77 | Cu-IUD, CuT380A |
Bateson et al. [35] | Australia | Prospective, observational | 211 | Cu-IUD (TT380 short or long, or a multiload device) |
Jagroep et al. [36] | Argentina | Retrospective, observational | 1047 | Cu-IUD, CuT380A or Cu-T375 |
Scavuzzi et al. [37] | Brazil | Cross-sectional, nulligravida vs parous women | 157 | Cu-IUD, CuT380A |
Wiebe and Trussell [38] | Canada | Prospective case series | 51 | Cu-IUD, CuT380A |
Garbers et al. [39] | USA | Retrospective cohort analysis | 283 | Cu-IUD, CuT380A |
Shimoni et al. 2011[40] | USA | RCT | 156 | Cu-IUD, immediate vs late insertion following MTPO |
Reeves et al. [41] | USA | RCT | 198 vs 100 | Two Cu-IUDs: VeraCept175 vs CuT380S |
Akintomide et al. [42] | UK | Retrospective, comparative, case control review | 63 vs 67 | Two Cu-IUDs: Mini TT380 Slimline vs standard-sized TT380 Slimline |
LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD | ||||
Bachofner et al. [43] | Switzerland | Retrospective comparative chart review | 419 vs 296 vs 40 | LNG-IUD, 52 mg vs Cu-T IUD (3rd generation) vs GyneFix 300 Cu-IUD |
Phillips et al. [44] | USA | Retrospective, comparative, observational | 770 vs 186 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD |
Hall and Kutler [45] | USA | Prospective, comparative, survey | 88 vs 21 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs CuT380A |
Maguire et al. [46] | USA | Secondary analysis of RCT assessing lidocaine for insertion pain | 62 vs 137 | LNG-IUD vs CuT380A |
Wildemeersch et al. [47] | Belgium | Analysis of data collected from studies of FibroPlant and GyneFix | 104 vs 50 | Cu-IUD (GyneFix) vs LNG-IUD (FibroPlant) |
Flamant et al. [48] | France | Prospective, comparative, observational | 94 vs 43 | Cu-IUD vs LNG-IUD |
McNicholas et al. [49] | USA | Retrospective, comparative, observational | 53 vs 24 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD |
Lara-Torre et al. [50] | USA | Retrospective, comparative, chart review | 77 vs 12 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD |
LNG-IUD and/or Cu-IUD vs Implant | ||||
Piva et al. [51] | Italy | Prospective, comparative, observational | 47 vs 6 vs 36 | LNG-IUD and Cu-IUD vs implant |
Agostini et al. [52] | France | Retrospective, comparative, cross-sectional | 5405 vs 3896 vs 1482 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs ENG implant |
Sanders et al. [53] | USA | Prospective, comparative, observational | 82 vs 33 vs 65 | LNG-IUD (52 mg) vs Cu-IUD (T380) vs ENG implant |
Apter et al. [54] | Australia, Finland, France, Norway, Sweden and UK | RCT | 382 vs 381 | LNG-IUD (Jaydess, 13.5 mg) vs ENG implant |
Diedrich et al. [21] | USA | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | 3001 vs 826 1184 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD (T380A) vs ENG |
Grunloh et al. [22] | USA | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | 3610 vs 952 vs 1366 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs ENG |
O'Neil-Callahan et al. [23] | USA | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | 6153 overall | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs ENG |
Peipert et al. [24] | USA | Prospective, comparative, cohort study, Contraceptive CHOICE Project | 1890 vs 434 vs 522 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD vs implant (vs non-LARC) |
Modesto et al. [55] | Brazil | RCT of routine vs intensive counselling | 99 vs 100 vs 98 | LNG-IUD vs Cu-IUD (T380A) vs ENG |
Short et al. [56] | Multinational | Prospective, comparative, observational | 247 vs 116 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs ENG |
Weisberg et al. [57] | Australia | Prospective, comparative, observational | 179 vs 132 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs ENG |
Short et al. [58] | Multinational | Prospective, comparative, observational | 211 vs 100 | LNG-IUD (Mirena) vs ENG |