Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:13:12.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent studies in intrauterine devices: a reappraisal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Robert Snowden
Robert Snowden
Affiliation:
Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Since the first rush of publications on IUDs following the start of Tietze's Cooperative Statistical Programme for the Evaluation of IUDs (Tietze & Lewit, 1970) there has rarely been a period in which a report relating to newer, ‘second-generation’ devices has not been published. There are degrees of sophistication in these reports varying from the odd anecdotal reference and highly subjective clinical impression to carefully constructed and evaluated large-scale clinical and field trials. This in itself creates problems, for the carefully constructed trials tend to be reported long after the clinical impressions have been publicized. In some cases the impressionistic information has so affected opinion that the presentation of data from large-scale trials providing greater validity and reliability becomes merely an academic exercise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1975 , pp. 367 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaft, M.E., Silberman, E. & Stone, M. (1969) The M, a new intrauterine contraceptive device. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 105, 279.Google Scholar
Culliton, B. & Knopman, D. (1974) Dalkon Shield affair: a bad lesson in science and decision making. Science, N. Y. 185, 839.Google Scholar
FPRU (1972) Description of Unit and National IUD Network. Report No. 1, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1973) Preliminary Assessment of the Latex Leaf. Report No. 5, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974a) United Kingdom Field Trial of the Dalkon Shield. Report No. 7, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974b) United Kingdom Field Trial of the Gravigard Device. Report No. 8, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974c) Preliminary Assessment of the LEM Intrauterine Device. Report No. 9, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974d) Preliminary Assessment of the Copper Omega Intrauterine Device. Report No. 10, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974e) Two Dalkon Shield Studies. Report No. 12, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
FPRU (1974f) Progress Report April 1972–June 1974. Report No. 14, Family Planning Research Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, A.F. (1965) Intra-uterine contraceptive devices. J. Reprod. Fert. 10, 115.Google Scholar
Lardner, T., Shack, W., Tam, P., Belsky, R. & Schubeck, F. (1970) IUD Information Handbook. The Pathfinder Fund, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
Lloyd, R. (1965) Proposal for a World Family Plan. Int. Dev. Rev. 7, 4.Google Scholar
Snowden, R. (1971) Social Factors in the Use and Effectiveness of the Intrauterine Device. Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Tietze, C. & Lewit, S. (1970) Evaluation of intrauterine devices: ninth progress report of the Cooperative Statistical Program. Stud. Fam. Plann. No. 55, 1.Google Scholar