ライフサイエンスコーパス: intrauterine device

1 een 1 week and 13 months of insertion of the intrauterine device.

2 used oral contraceptives, a diaphragm, or an intrauterine device.

3 l ring, new formulations of pills, and a new intrauterine device.

4 e without a uterine cervix cannot receive an intrauterine device.

5 progestin-only pills, and 23 (17 to 29) for intrauterine device.

6 r progestin-only pills, and 11 (7 to 16) for intrauterine device.

7 No increase observed with use of hormonal intrauterine devices.

8 ntraceptive pills (OCPs), and 0.5% (n = 231) intrauterine devices.

9 reased risk was observed with progestin-only intrauterine device (1.1 (1.0 to 1.3) for ischaemic stro

10 ily reversible mechanical approaches (copper intrauterine devices: 656 of 848 patients [77.4%] at yea

11 ives, long-acting reversible contraceptives (intrauterine device and implant), and short-acting contr

12 Furthermore, intrauterine devices and implants are the most effective

13 eversible contraception (LARC), specifically intrauterine devices and implants, offers an unprecedent

14 sing other contraceptive methods, except for intrauterine devices and permanent methods, had 3.1-4.1

15 g all other contraceptive methods except for intrauterine devices and permanent methods.

16 ost commonly used reversible contraceptives, intrauterine devices and subdermal implants have the hig

17 Use of long-acting methods, such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants, has increas

18 t brachial plexus injury, dislodgement of an intrauterine device, and vaginal granulation tissue.

19 traceptive use (prescription contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and implants) during treatment was

20 Barrier methods, intrauterine devices, and progestins can be used.

21 Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study included wo

22 -acting reversible contraceptives (implants, intrauterine devices) are associated with low failure ra

23 rel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and copper intrauterine device (C-IUD) in Cape Town, South Africa.

24 plantable etonogestrel (ENG), or nonhormonal intrauterine device contraception and were observed ever

25 ts that the nonhormonal contraceptive copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) may increase bacterial vagi

26 , levonorgestrel implant (LNG), and a copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) on the vaginal environment

27 onorgestrel implant (LNG-implant), or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD).

28 ntrauterine system (LNG-IUS, n = 11), copper intrauterine device (cu-IUD, n = 13) or levonorgestrel-c

29 medroxyprogesterone acetate (n = 25), copper intrauterine device (cuIUD; n = 12), or condoms (n = 13)

30 ligation, rhythm method, diaphragm, condoms, intrauterine device, foam, spousal vasectomy) and infert

31 sed risks in certain cardiac disease states, intrauterine devices, implants, and progestin-only metho

32 as modern contraceptive methods: oral pills, intrauterine devices, injectables, male and female steri

33 the posttest, the most learned methods were intrauterine devices, injections, implants, and withdraw

34 The intrauterine device is not a risk factor for this condit

35 on contraception (pill, patch, and/or ring), intrauterine device (IUD) and/or contraceptive implant,

36 Intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion increases the risk o

37 ce data from women in the United States with intrauterine device (IUD) insertions during 2011-2018, t

38 ks after birth, may be a convenient time for intrauterine device (IUD) placement; the placement could

39 ntibiotic prophylaxis before insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) remains uncertain.

40 However, intrauterine device (IUD) use has increasingly replaced

41 In the United States, more intrauterine device (IUD) users select levonorgestrel IU

42 esterone Acetate (DMPA), implant, pills, and intrauterine device (IUD)) were promoted and provided to

43 of 3 contraceptive methods-DMPA-IM, a copper intrauterine device (IUD), and a levonorgestrel (LNG) im

44 Monthly dispensations of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and oral contraceptive pills

45 LARC methods, which include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal hormonal impla

46 ing reversible contraceptive methods include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants and s

47 Contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs) are long-acting reversible c

48 The contraceptive effectiveness of intrauterine devices (IUDs) has been attributed in part

49 This review discusses the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) in United States teens as a

50 Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post pa

51 out upper-genital-tract infection related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) limits their wider use.

52 ng on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20

53 Intrauterine devices (IUDs) provide highly effective, re

54 long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), intrauterine devices (IUDs), implants, short-acting horm

55 nsdermal patches, intravaginal rings (IVRs), intrauterine devices (IUDs), injectables and subdermal i

56 Previous studies of intrauterine devices (IUDs), many of which are no longer

57 g reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as intrauterine devices (IUDs).

58 rm selecting condoms, oral contraception, or intrauterine devices (IUDs).

59 jected progestagen, or progestagen-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs): ORs = 1.23 (95% CI [1.14 to

60 methods (OCP 28% versus injectable/implants/intrauterine devices [IUDs] 18%; p = 0.06).

61 ure of long-acting reversible contraception (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) with other com

62 (DMPA; n = 32), the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD; n = 27), oral contraceptiv

63 s and women enrolled in CHOICE, 72% chose an intrauterine device or implant (LARC methods); the remai

64 distinguish those reporting use of (1) LARC (intrauterine device or implant), (2) oral contraceptives

65 ould select birth control pills; condoms; an intrauterine device or implant; injection, patch, or rin

66 For injections, implants, and intrauterine devices that are used for a different time

67 hildren; HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.90), and intrauterine device use (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.86)

68 with decreased ovarian cancer risk, whereas intrauterine device use (RR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.85)

69 Furthermore, tubal ligation, intrauterine device use, and infertility were associated

70 titution, workplace, hormonal contraception, intrauterine-device use, alcohol consumption, syphilis,

71 Dislodgement of an intrauterine device was reported in 13 women who used th

72 tion except for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, which was not associated with eithe