Abstract
Objectives
Study design
Results
Conclusion
Implications
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionReferences
- Levonorgestrel vs. copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception.N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 335-344
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Version 5.1.0 ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
- Characteristics associated with discontinuation of long-acting reversible contraception within the first 6 months of use.Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 1214-1221
- Continuation of copper-containing intrauterine devices at 6 months.Contraception. 2013; 87: 101-106
- Implanon users are less likely to be satisfied with their contraception after 6 months than IUD users.Contraception. 2009; 80: 452-456
- Intrauterine contraception for adolescents aged 14-18 years: a multicenter randomized pilot study of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared to the Copper T 380A.Contraception. 2010; 81: 123-127
- Acceptability of randomization to levonorgestrel versus copper intrauterine device among women requesting IUD insertion for contraception.Contraception. 2015; 92: 572-574
- Acceptability of intrauterine contraception among women living with human immunodeficiency virus: a randomised clinical trial.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016; 21: 220-226
- Association of short-term bleeding and cramping patterns with long-acting reversible contraceptive method satisfaction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: p50.e1-p50.e8
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02175030
☆Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article
☆☆Funding: This project is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development (1R01HD083340). Additional support came by the University of Utah Population Health Research (PHR) Foundation, with funding in part from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), through Grant UL1TR002538 (formerly 5UL1TR001067-05, 8UL1TR000105 and UL1RR025764). Use of REDCap was provided by 8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764) NCATS/NIH. DT and KF receive support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (DT K24HD087436, KF K12HD103096). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of any of the funding agencies or participating institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, the University of Utah, or Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. The funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing, or the decision to publish.
☆☆The Division of Family Planning in the University of Utah's Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology receives research funding from Bayer Women's Health Care, Merck & Co. Inc., Cooper Surgical, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Femasys, and Medicines 360. Rebecca Simmons did a short 1-week consultancy with a fertility tech company in January of 2020 for which she received compensation. DT serves as a consultant for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and the national principal investigator for FDA trials of two IUDs. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest
☆☆Each author has confirmed compliance with the journal's requirements for authorship.
