MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977345099 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16629049

Satisfaction and continuation with LNG-IUS 12: findings from the real-world kyleena<sup>®</sup> satisfaction study

2021· article· en· W6977345099 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuationDiscontinuationPatient satisfactionCohortCohort studyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kyleena<sup>®</sup> Satisfaction Study (KYSS) aimed to assess satisfaction and continuation with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 12 (Kyleena<sup>®</sup>) in routine clinical practice and to evaluate factors that influence satisfaction. This prospective, observational, multicentre, single-arm cohort study, with 1-year follow-up, was conducted in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Spain and the United States from 2017 to 2018. During routine counselling, women who independently selected to use LNG-IUS 12 were invited to participate in the study. KYSS assessed LNG-IUS 12 satisfaction, continuation and safety. Overall, there were 1126 successful LNG-IUS 12 placements, with insertion attempted in 1129 women. Most participants (833/968, 86.1%, 95% CI 83.7–88.2%, with satisfaction outcome data available) reported satisfaction with LNG-IUS 12 at 12 months (or at the final visit if the device was discontinued prematurely). Satisfaction was not associated with age, parity or motivation for choosing LNG-IUS 12. The majority of women (919/1129, 81.4%) chose to continue after 12 months. Discontinuation was not correlated with age or parity. Overall, 191 women (16.9%) reported a treatment-emergent adverse event. Results from KYSS provide the first real-world evidence assessing LNG-IUS 12, and demonstrate high satisfaction and continuation rates irrespective of age or parity. <b>Clinical trial registration:</b> NCT03182140

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207