Testing the Clinical Performance of an IUD

  • T. Luukkainen
Part of the Developments in Obstetrics and Gynecology book series (DIOG, volume 5)


The results of clinical trials with the same IUD show great variations. In a multiclinic study in Finland with Cu-T200 the pregnancy rate at twelve months varied between 0.0 and 5.5 in different clinics (Luukkainen et al. 1975). A collaborative study (Sivin 1973) performed in five countries reported pregnancy rates from 0.3 to 2.9 and removal rates from 6.9 to 21.0 for Cu-T200. Both studies were carefully planned to minimize the clinical effect. The same instructions for insertion technique and for the patients were used. The clinical records were the same in the different clinics and data were collected and analyzed in one unit. It is evident that the results of various investigators on the performance of the same IUD, using different insertion techniques and data collection, are more variable than the results in these studies, where guidelines were kept similar by the central team.


Removal Rate Pregnancy Rate Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Intrauterine Device Insertion Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azen SP, S Roy, Pike MC, Casagrande J, Mishell DR: A new procedure for the statistical evaluation of intrauterine contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 128: 329, (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fylling P, Fagerhol M: Experience with two different medicated intrauterine devices: a comparative study of the Progestasert and Nova-T. Fertil Steril 31: 138, (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Jain AK: Comparative performance of three types of IUDs in the United States. In: Analysis of intrauterine contraception, Hefnawi F, Segal S, (eds), Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing, 1975, pp 3 – 16.Google Scholar
  4. Jain AK, Sivin I: Lifetable analysis of IUDs: Problems and recommendations. Stud Fam Plann 8: 25, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Luukkainen T, Timonen H, Sivin I: Multiclinic copper-T studies in Finland. In: Analysis of intrauterine contraception, Hefnawi F, Segal S, (eds), Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing, 1975, pp 243 – 248.Google Scholar
  6. Luukkainen T, Nielsen N-C, Nygren K-G, Pyörälä T: Combined and national experience of postmenstrual insertions of Nova- T and copper-T in a randomized study. Contraception 19: 11, 1979a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Luukkainen T, Nielsen N-C, Nygren K-G, Pyörälä T, Kosonen A: Randomized comparison of clinical performance of two copper-releasing IUDs, Nova-T and copper-T, in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Contraception 19: 1, 1979b.Google Scholar
  8. LuukkainenT, Nielsen N-C, Nygren K-G, Pyörälä T, Nulliparous women, IUD and pelvic infection. Ann Clin Res, 1979c.Google Scholar
  9. Mishell DR Jr: The clinic factor in evaluating IUDs. In: Analysis of intrauterine contraception, Hefnawi F, Segal S, (eds), Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing, 1975, pp 27 – 36.Google Scholar
  10. Os WAA van, de Nooyer CCA, Bakker S, Bomert L, Rhemrev PER, Loendersloot EW: Evaluation of the combined Multi- load copper IUD ML Cu-250 and MC Cu-375. Int J Fertil 23: 152, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Osser S, Gullberg B, Liedholm P, Sjöberg N-O: Is development of a pelvic inflammatory disease in women using intrauterine device equal regardless of parity?: one-year follow-up study. Contraception 17: 563, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Potter RG Jr: Application of life-table techniques to measurement of contraceptive effectiveness. Demography 3: 297, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sivin I: The effectiveness of the copper-T intrauterine device: a collaborative study in five countries. Stud Fam Plann 4: 162, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thiery M, van der Pas H, van Os WAA, van Kets H: Clinical experience with two newer copper-loaded IUDs (T-Cu220C and ML Cu-250; simultaneous use of an IUD and a spermicide; postplacental insertion of the ML Cu-250. In: Human fertilization, Ludwig H, Tauber PF, (eds), Stuttgart Thieme, 1978a, pp 253 – 260.Google Scholar
  15. Thiery M, van der Pas H, van Os WAA Tauber PF, Dombro- wicz N, MacDonald JS, Haspels AA, Drogendijk AC, van Kets H, Boogers W: Three years experience with the ML Cu- 250, a new copper-wired intrauterine contraceptive device. Adv Planned Parenthood 13: 35, 1978b.Google Scholar
  16. Tietze C, Lewit S: Evaluation of intrauterine devices: ninth progress report of the cooperative statistical program. Stud Fam Plann 55: 1, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tietze C, Lewit S: Recommended procedures for the statistical evaluation of intrauterine contraception. Stud Fam Plann 4: 35, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. TimonenH: Intrauterine contraception with copper-T, Helsinki, Kirjapaino OY Tieto Ab, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Timonen H, Luukkainen T: The use-effectiveness of the copper- T200 in a simulated field trial. Contraception 9: 1, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zipper J, Medel M, Pastene L, Rivera M: Factors that limit the efficiency of copper-carrying IUDs. IN: Intrauterine devices, Wheeler RG, Duncan GW, Speidel JJ, (eds), New York, Academic Press, 1974, pp 235 – 242.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Luukkainen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations