Extended duration of use of long-acting reversible contraceptives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the efficacy and safety of etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implants, levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine systems (IUS), and copper (Cu) intrauterine devices (IUDs) for birth control when extended beyond prescription limits. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: The search identified articles published between January 2000 and June 2023 on long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods and extended duration of use. Publications on LNG subdermal implants or the "frameless" IUD (not marketed in Canada), case reports, case series, animal studies, and publications not written in English or French were excluded. SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five publications were included. No pregnancies were reported during prolonged use of the etonogestrel-releasing implant for 1 or 2 additional years beyond the recommended limits (783 participants and 306 participants, respectively), nor with the use of the TCu380A IUD for years 8 to 11 (682 participants), 8 to 12 (356 participants), and 11 to 16 (228 participants). No pregnancies were reported with the LNG-IUS in 9 studies with follow-up from 6 to 15 years, while 2 pregnancies were reported during year 6 in 2 studies, and 4 pregnancies during year 7 in 3 studies. The risk of expulsion persisted during prolonged use of the TCu380A device and the 52-mg LNG-IUS. Other adverse events were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Prolonged use of LARCs is safe and much more effective than short-acting contraceptive methods. Prolonged use of LARCs might be beneficial for individuals requiring contraception especially those with disrupted access to social and health care services or living in more remote areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".