Summary of findings 2. TCu 220C compared to Lippes Loop for immediate insertion post‐abortion.
| TCu 220C compared to Lippes Loop for immediate insertion post‐abortion | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with immediate insertion post‐abortion Settings: Clinic Intervention: TCu 220C Comparison: Lippes Loop | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Lippes Loop | TCu 220C | |||||
| Discontinuation due to perforation (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross rate (Discontinuation in percentages Follow‐up: mean 750 days | Study population | RR 0.92 (0.13 to 6.6) | 2269 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| 1 per 1000 | 1 per 1000 (0 to 6) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Discontinuation due to pelvic inflammatory disease (750 days) Follow‐up: mean 750 days | Study population | RR 1.17 (0.29 to 4.71) | 2269 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
| 3 per 1000 | 3 per 1000 (1 to 13) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Discontinuation rate due to pregnancy (750days) Follow‐up: mean 750 days | Study population | RR 0.38 (0.2 to 0.72) | 2269 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4 | ||
| 35 per 1000 | 13 per 1000 (7 to 25) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| Discontinuation rate due to expulsion (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross rate (Discontinuation in percentages) Follow‐up: mean 750 days | Study population | RR 0.51 (0.3 to 0.88) | 2269 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4 | ||
| 100 per 1000 | 51 per 1000 (30 to 88) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| *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; | ||||||
| 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 WHO 1983b‐ did not state whether sealed envelopes were opaque or sequentially‐numbered 2 There was no blinding in the two WHO studies. 3 No explanation was provided 4 No blinding in the two studies