MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417431375 · doi:10.1080/13625187.2025.2599357

Immediate versus delayed postpartum contraceptive implant on lactogenesis and breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4417431375 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Fonseca Queiroz, iz Asisclo Villagómez Ortiz, Giovanna Cristina de Castro Martin, Bruna Benigna Sales Armstrong, D. B. Silva, Alessandra Peloggia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingContraceptive implantImplantPostpartum periodLong-acting reversible contraceptionFamily planningPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To evaluate the impact of immediate postpartum contraceptive implant insertion on lactogenesis, breastfeeding outcomes, maternal satisfaction, implant continuation, and pregnancy rates within six months after delivery.Study design This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and PRISMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing immediate (≤24 h after delivery) versus delayed (≥2 weeks postpartum) insertion of etonogestrel or levonorgestrel contraceptive implants were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2025. Random-effects models were used to pool results, and heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025117074).Results Eight randomised controlled trials including 881 postpartum women were analysed. Immediate insertion did not delay lactogenesis or reduce exclusive or any breastfeeding rates at six months. However, immediate insertion was associated with higher rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52; p = 0.032) and any breastfeeding at 3 months (RR = 1.16; 95% CI −1.04 to 1.30; p = 0.007). Implant continuation at last follow-up was also higher with immediate insertion (RR= 1.44; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.75; p < 0.001). No differences were found for overall satisfaction or pregnancy within 6 months postpartum. Certainty of evidence was moderate to high for primary outcomes.Conclusion The results of our meta-analysis suggest that immediate postpartum contraceptive implant insertion is safe, does not interfere with lactogenesis, and maintains breastfeeding performance. Compared with delayed insertion, it increases implant continuation rates and offers a convenient, effective, and acceptable postpartum contraceptive option, particularly relevant for settings with limited postpartum follow-up access.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.044
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health CareSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207