Migration of etonogestrel subcutaneous contraceptive implants: systematic review and recommendations for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Migration is a rare but serious complication of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant, and little is known about its extent.Purpose To document and characterise cases of etonogestrel contraceptive implant migration in the scientific literature.Methods A systematic review of Medline, Embase and Global Health databases was carried out between January 2000 and January 2023 to identify articles presenting implant migrations. Narrative reviews, conference abstracts and articles not written in English or French were excluded.Results Forty-five articles, mostly published since 2016, were identified (eight case series and 37 case reports), for a total of 148 independent cases of migration: in pulmonary blood vessels (n = 74), in non-pulmonary blood vessels (n = 16) and extravascular (n = 58). Many patients are asymptomatic and migration is often an incidental finding. A non-palpable implant and symptoms related to implant location (intra- or extra-vascular) may be indicative of migration. Inadequate insertion and normal or underweight appear to increase the risk of migration. Scientific societies and authors offer practical strategies to deal with implant migration.Conclusion Professionals who insert and remove contraceptive implants must be adequately trained. They need to be on the lookout for implant migration, and promptly refer patients to appropriate care if migration is suspected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".