Discontinuation rates of intrauterine contraception due to unfavourable bleeding: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) and copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) offer long-acting contraception; however, some women may discontinue use within the first year due to bleeding pattern changes, limiting their potential. This systematic literature review investigated whether differences in bleeding profiles influence continuation rates in women in America, Europe and Australia. METHODS: Searches performed in PubMed and Embase were screened to identify publications describing bleeding patterns and rates of early IUC removal/discontinuation or continuation, descriptions of bleeding patterns, reasons for discontinuation, and patient satisfaction, acceptability and tolerability for LNG-IUDs and Cu-IUDs published between January 2010 and December 2019. The results were further restricted to capture citations related to 'Humans' and 'Females'. The review was limited to studies published from 2010 onwards, as changing attitudes over time mean that results of studies performed before this date may not be generalizable to current practice. RESULTS: Forty-eight publications describing 41 studies performed principally in the USA (n = 17) and Europe (n = 13) were identified. Publications describing bleeding patterns in LNG-IUD users (n = 11) consistently observed a reduction in bleeding in most women, whereas two of three studies in Cu-IUD users reported heavy bleeding in approximately 40% of patients. Rates of discontinuation for both devices ranged widely and may be as high as 50% but were lower for LNG-IUDs versus Cu-IUDs. Discontinuation rates due to bleeding were consistently higher for Cu-IUDs versus LNG-IUDs. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding is a common reason for discontinuation of Cu-IUDs and LNG-IUDs. The more favourable bleeding pattern observed in LNG-IUD users may be associated with a lower rate of early discontinuation of LNG-IUDs versus Cu-IUDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".