Bleeding profile satisfaction and pain and ease of placement with levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD: findings from the Kyleena<sup>®</sup> Satisfaction study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate bleeding profile satisfaction and pain and ease of placement with levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD in routine clinical practice.Methods Women who independently chose levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD during routine counselling were invited to participate in this prospective, multinational, observational study. Patient-reported pain and clinician-reported ease of placement were assessed. Bleeding profile satisfaction was evaluated at 12 months/premature end of observation.Results Most participants (77.8%, n = 878/1129) rated levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD placement pain as ‘none’ or ‘mild’ and most clinicians (91.1%, n = 1029/1129) rated placement as ‘easy’. Pain was more often rated higher in nulliparous compared with parous (p < .0001) and younger (<26 years) compared with older participants (p < .0001), although 67.7% and 69.0% of nulliparous and younger participants respectively reported ‘none’ or ‘mild’ pain. Bleeding profile satisfaction at 12 months/end of observation was similar in parous (72.9%, n = 318/436) and nulliparous (69.6%, n = 314/451) participants. Most participants irrespective of age reported bleeding profile satisfaction, ranging from 67.8% (n = 206/304) for 18–25 years to 76.5% (n = 218/285) for >35 years.Conclusion We observed high bleeding profile satisfaction regardless of age or parity with levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD and confirmed that device placement is easy and associated with no more than mild pain in most cases in routine clinical practice. Real-world evidence from the Kyleena® Satisfaction Study in routine clinical practice shows high bleeding profile satisfaction with levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD regardless of age or parity. IUD placement was easy and associated with little to no pain for most women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".