Summary of findings for the main comparison. Immediate versus delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for.
| Immediate versus delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) for | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with Settings: Intervention: Immediate versus delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Immediate versus delayed insertion (LNG‐IUS or CuT380A IUD) | |||||
| Expulsion by 6 months Rate in percentage Follow‐up: mean 6 months | Study population | RR 2.9 (1.25 to 6.71) | 878 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| 15 per 1000 | 43 per 1000 (19 to 100) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 19 per 1000 | 55 per 1000 (24 to 127) | |||||
| Removal by 6 months Rate in percentage Follow‐up: mean 6 months | Study population | RR 2.01 (0.99 to 4.06) | 790 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
| 28 per 1000 | 56 per 1000 (28 to 114) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 22 per 1000 | 44 per 1000 (22 to 89) | |||||
| Use at 6 months Rate in percentage Follow‐up: mean 6 months | Study population | RR 1.4 (1.24 to 1.58) | 878 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4 | ||
| 464 per 1000 | 650 per 1000 (575 to 733) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 386 per 1000 | 540 per 1000 (479 to 610) | |||||
| Pregnancy at six months Rate in percentage | Study population | RR 0.37 (0.12 to 1.14) | 878 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate5 | ||
| 23 per 1000 | 9 per 1000 (3 to 27) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 23 per 1000 | 9 per 1000 (3 to 26) | |||||
| upper genital tract infection Rate in percentage | Study population | OR 1 (0.32 to 3.14) | 878 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate5 | ||
| 13 per 1000 | 13 per 1000 (4 to 39) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 16 per 1000 | 16 per 1000 (5 to 49) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Cremer 2011 stated that IUD was not always confirmed to be present by a provider so but self‐reported by perticipants so it is not possible to be certain of the true continuation rates or expulsion rates. 2 Two of the included studies did not blind participants nor providers. 3 Attrition too high in the three studies analysed for this outcome 4 Presence of IUD was not always confirmed by a provider but self‐reported by participants 5 Number lost to follow up in all 3 studies too high.