The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: A systematic review of 35 years of experience

203Citations
Citations of this article
219Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been studied for use for emergency contraception for at least 35 years. IUDs are safe and highly effective for emergency contraception and regular contraception, and are extremely cost-effective as an ongoing method. The objective of this study was to evaluate the existing data to estimate the efficacy of IUDs for emergency contraception. Methods The reference list for this study was generated from hand searching the reference lists of relevant articles and our own article archives, and electronic searches of several databases: Medline, Global Health, Clinicaltrials.gov, Popline, Wanfang Data (Chinese) and Weipu Data (Chinese). We included studies published in English or Chinese, with a defined population of women who presented for emergency contraception and were provided with an IUD, and in which the number of pregnancies was ascertained and loss to follow-up was clearly defined. Data from each article were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Results The 42 studies (of 274 retrieved) that met our inclusion criteria were conducted in six countries between 1979 and 2011 and included eight different types of IUD and 7034 women. The maximum timeframe from intercourse to insertion of the IUD ranged from 2 days to 10 or more days; the majority of insertions (74 of studies) occurred within 5 days of intercourse. The pregnancy rate (excluding one outlier study) was 0.09. Conclusions IUDs are a highly effective method of contraception after unprotected intercourse. Because they are safe for the majority of women, highly effective and cost-effective when left in place as ongoing contraception, whenever clinically feasible IUDs should be included in the range of emergency contraception options offered to patients presenting after unprotected intercourse. This review is limited by the fact that the original studies did not provide sufficient data on the delay between intercourse and insertion of the IUD, parity, cycle day of intercourse or IUD type to allow analysis by any of these variables. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.

References Powered by Scopus

Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and disparities, 2006

1049Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis

477Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Can we identify women at risk of pregnancy despite using emergency contraception? Data from randomized trials of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel

269Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021

1387Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016

512Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Contraception for adolescents

330Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cleland, K., Zhu, H., Goldstuck, N., Cheng, L., & Trussell, J. (2012). The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: A systematic review of 35 years of experience. Human Reproduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des140

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 70

61%

Researcher 25

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 16

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 82

69%

Nursing and Health Professions 19

16%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 10

8%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
News Mentions: 9
References: 14
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 22

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free