Lester 2015.
Methods | Location and time frame: Kampala, Uganda, from February 2011 to December 2011 Design: RCT; pilot study to determine feasibility of study Sample size calculation and outcome of focus: based on literature and postpartum return rates at Mulago, 40% do not return for delayed insertion and 10% discontinue in 6 months. 90% immediate group and 54% delayed group would use IUD at 6 months. Sample 30 per group for 84% power (β = 0.16) to detect difference of 36% between groups, using significance level 0.05 |
|
Participants | General with N: 68 randomized in national referral hospital Inclusion criteria: pregnant at enrollment; scheduled for cesarean delivery > 8 hours after consent; desires copper IUD; age ≥ 18; English or Luganda speaking; willing to be accompanied home from hospital and to have address recorded; willing to have home visit at 6 months postpartum if no return for scheduled visit Exclusion criteria: allergy to copper; pelvic tuberculosis; severe thrombocytopenia; positive test for gonorrhea or Chlamydia; leiomyomata or other anomaly that prevents IUD placement; cervical cancer or carcinoma in situ; desire for repeat pregnancy < 12 months; chorioamnionitis; preterm birth < 34 weeks; diagnosis of AIDS (HIV not exclusion criterion); fetal demise; hemorrhage; ruptured uterus; eclampsia; evidence of severe anemia Post‐enrollment exclusion criteria: participant no longer desires CuT 380A or
|
|
Interventions | CuT 380A IUD inserted after cesarean section Treatment: immediate postplacental (within 10 minutes) Comparison: standard (6 weeks) |
|
Outcomes | IUD insertion and use at 6 months post delivery, time to IUD expulsion, time to pregnancy; safety measures (infection, uterine perforation), vaginal bleeding, satisfaction Assessment times: delivery, 6‐week postpartum visit, phone at 3 months, clinic visit at 6 months |
|
Notes | Information obtained from full report as well as ClinicalTrials.gov. Results from related abstract are also mentioned (see Averbach 2012). | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Permuted‐block randomization scheme with block sizes of 4 and 6 |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Sequentially numbered, opaque envelopes; opened after delivery of baby and placenta, given no intraoperative exclusion criteria developed |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | None used |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Loss to follow‐up: 10% (7/68); immediate 15% (5/34) and delayed 6% (2/34) |