↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005347.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina Kulier, Paul O'Brien, Frans M Helmerhorst, Margaret Usher-Patel, Catherine d'Arcangues

Abstract

Intrauterine devices (IUD) are safe and effective methods of long term reversible contraception. The design, and copper content as well as placement of the copper on IUDs could affect their effectiveness and side-effect profile. We compared different copper IUDs for their effectiveness and side effects. Multiple electronic databases were searched with appropriate key words and names of the IUDs known to be in the market. We searched the reference lists of papers identified and contacted trialists when possible. There was no language restriction. Randomised controlled trials comparing different IUDs were considered. Trials needed to report on clinical outcomes. Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis results are expressed as rate difference (RD) using a fixed-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of significant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied. We included 35 trials, resulting in 18 comparisons of 10 different IUDs in approximately 48,000 women. TCu380A was more effective in preventing pregnancy than MLCu375 (RD 1.70%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.95% after 4 years of use). TCu380A was also more effective than MLCu250, TCu220 and TCu200. There tended to be fewer pregnancies with TCu380S compared to TCu380A after the first year of use, a difference which was statistically significant in the fourth year (RD -1.62%, 95% CI -3.00% to -0.24%). This occurred despite more expulsions with TCu380S (RD 3.50%, 95% CI 0.36% to 6.63% at 4 years). MLCu375 was no more effective than TCu220 at 1 year of use, or MLCu250 and NovaT up to 3 years. Compared to TCu380A or TCu380S, none of the IUDs showed any benefits in terms of bleeding or pain, or any of the other reasons for early discontinuation. None of the trials that reported events at insertion found one IUD easier to insert than another or caused less pain at insertion. There is no evidence that uterine perforation rates vary by type of device. There are minimal randomised data on IUD use in nulliparous women. TCu380A or TCu380S appear to be more effective than other IUDs. No IUD showed consistently lower removal rates for bleeding and pain in comparison to other IUDs. There is no evidence that any particular framed copper device is better suited to women who have not had children.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Other 9 6%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 32 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 34 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,250,989
of 21,738,040 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,647
of 12,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,716
of 254,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,738,040 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 254,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.