A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Health-related quality of life and satisfaction associated with 3-year use of a levonorgestrel 13.5 mg intrauterine device vs Nova T copper 380 mm intrauterine device: Results of a phase 4 randomized controlled trial. | LitMetric

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the impact of levonorgestrel 13.5 mg and Nova T copper 380 mm intrauterine devices (LNG13.5-IUD and Cu380-IUD, respectively) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the satisfaction with the method throughout 3 years of use.

Study Design: We conducted a single-center, evaluator-masked, randomized controlled trial to compare the bleeding profile of LNG13.5-IUD and Cu380-IUD users. Secondary objectives included HRQoL and satisfaction throughout the study. We used the validated questionnaire of the Spanish Society of Contraception (SEC-QoL), which evaluates social, sexual/psychological well-being, and menstrual/breast symptoms, to assess HRQoL and a 5-point Likert scale for satisfaction.

Results: These secondary outcomes were assessed in the whole population included in the study: 55 LNG13.5-IUD and 51 Cu380-IUD users. The mean overall SEC-QoL scores were similar at baseline (61.5 and 59.6, respectively; p = 0.570) and greater for LNG13.5-IUD after 3 years (69.2 vs 52.5, respectively; p = 0.002). All SEC-QoL domains scored also higher (p < 0.05 vs Cu380-IUD for all). At month 36, 20/30 (67%) and 8/28 (29%) users, respectively, had reached the MID (a 3.4-point increase) in SEC-QoL score (p = 0.004). At this time, 24/29 (82%) and 9/28 (32%) users, respectively, were "very satisfied" (p < 0.001). Willingness to continue the method was similar (22/28 [79%] vs 17/28 [61%] users, respectively; p = 0.170).

Conclusions: Among the use of LNG13.5-IUD was associated with better HRQoL vs Cu380-IUD throughout the 3 years. Satisfaction with the method was higher with LNG13.5-IUD.

Implications: People considering having an LNG13.5-IUD or a Cu380-IUD inserted may now benefit from the information regarding the impact of these devices on HRQoL and satisfaction with the method as reported in our study conducted in Spain.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110367DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lng135-iud cu380-iud
12
health-related quality
8
quality life
8
levonorgestrel 135 mg
8
intrauterine device
8
nova copper
8
copper 380 mm
8
380 mm intrauterine
8
randomized controlled
8
controlled trial
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!