↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

3 tweeters


1 Dimensions

Readers on

13 Mendeley
Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013744.pub2
Pubmed ID

Shaalini Ramanadhan, Norman Goldstuck, Jillian T Henderson, Yan Che, Kelly Cleland, Laura E Dodge, Alison Edelman


The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is a highly effective method of contraception that can also be used for emergency contraception (EC). It is the most effective form of EC, and is more effective than other existing oral regimens also used for EC. The Cu-IUD provides the unique benefit of providing ongoing contraception after it is inserted for EC; however, uptake of this intervention has been limited. Progestin IUDs are a popular method of long-acting, reversible contraception. If these devices were also found to be effective for EC, they would provide a critical additional option for women. These IUDs could not only provide EC and ongoing contraception, but additional non-contraceptive benefits, including a reduction in menstrual bleeding, cancer prevention, and pain management. To examine the safety and effectiveness of progestin-containing IUDs for emergency contraception, compared with copper-containing IUDs, or compared with dedicated oral hormonal methods. We considered all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared outcomes for individuals seeking a levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) for EC to a Cu-IUD or dedicated oral EC method. We considered full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data. We considered studies irrespective of their publication status and language of publication. We included studies comparing progestin IUDs with copper-containing IUDs, or oral EC methods for emergency contraception. We systematically searched nine medical databases, two trials registries, and one gray literature site. We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database, and removed duplicates. Three review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text reports to determine studies eligible for inclusion. We followed standard Cochrane methodology to assess risk of bias, and analyze and interpret the data. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included only one relevant study (711 women); a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing LNG-IUDs to Cu-IUDs for EC, with a one-month follow-up. With one study, the evidence was very uncertain for the difference in pregnancy rates, failed insertion rates, expulsion rates, removal rates and the difference in the acceptability of the IUDs. There was also uncertain evidence suggesting the Cu-IUD may slightly increase rates of cramping and the LNG-IUD may slightly increase bleeding and spotting days.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited in its ability to provide definitive evidence regarding the LNG-IUD's equivalence, superiority, or inferiority to the Cu-IUD for EC. Only one study was identified in the review, which had possible risks of bias related to randomization and rare outcomes. Additional studies are needed to provide definitive evidence related to the effectiveness of the LNG-IUD for EC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 31%
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Professor 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Unspecified 4 31%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2023.
All research outputs
of 23,524,722 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 388,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,524,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.