Ultrasound-guided versus uterine sound-sparing approach during copper intrauterine device insertion: a randomised clinical trial.

What Was Tested

The paper reports a study of Copper (Supplement), published as a randomized controlled trial.

To compare the outcomes of trans-abdominal ultrasound (TAS) guided approach and uterine sound-sparing approach (USSA) during copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

The primary outcome was to measure the satisfaction score of IUD insertion in both methods.

Who Took Part

According to the abstract, 44 women were involved.

PubMed tags the participants as women only.

A randomised open-label clinical trial (Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT03383432) included multiparous women requesting Copper IUD insertion for birth control were invited to participate.

The eligible women were randomised into two groups (44 women in each group); group I (TAS-guided IUD insertion) and group II: USSA.

How the Study Was Run

In design terms this was a randomized and open-label study.

Random assignment meant chance, not the researchers, decided who got Copper (Supplement) and who got the comparison, which limits bias.

Nothing was hidden in this open-label Copper (Supplement) study: the women and staff both knew the treatment.

What Was Measured

Topics PubMed links to this paper include Intrauterine Devices, Copper, Pain, Prosthesis Implantation and Ultrasonography, Interventional.

The authors tagged it with the keywords satisfaction, ultrasound and uterine sound.

What This Means in Plain Language

The paper is a randomized and open-label study of Copper (Supplement) in 44 women.

Results are reported in around 6 sentences of the abstract; we leave them to the paper itself rather than summarise them.

The publication is from 2022 (The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception), a journal based in England.

More context: the Copper (Supplement) compound page, all human trials.