Cited by 60Uterine Myomas and TreatmentsReproductive Health and ContraceptionMenstrual Health and Disorders

Efficacy of the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system in uterine leiomyoma

Kriplani, Alka, Awasthi, Divya, Kulshrestha, Vidushi, Agarwal, Nutan·2012·International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS) in reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL) in myoma‐related menorrhagia and to assess the effect of the LNG‐IUS on uterine and leiomyoma volume. Methods: A prospective comparative study investigated the effect of LNG‐IUS use in women with myoma‐related menorrhagia (n = 54) and women with idiopathic menorrhagia (n = 50). The outcome was assessed in terms of reductions in MBL and in myoma and uterine volume. Results: Within 1 month of LNG‐IUS insertion, the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score in the myoma group fell by 86.8% (P < 0.0001). At 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, the MBL was reduced by 92.1%, 97.4%, 97.4%, 99.5%, and 99.5%, respectively, similar to the effect seen in the idiopathic menorrhagia group. The mean uterine volume was significantly reduced in both groups, but the reduction was greater in the group with leiomyomas (idiopathic menorrhagia, P = 0.038; myoma‐related menorrhagia, P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant reduction in the myoma volume (P = 0.409). Conclusion: Use of the LNG‐IUS appears to lead to a significant reduction in the uterine volume of women with menorrhagia, as well as reducing the MBL in women with uterine leiomyomas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.031

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 60

Authors
Kriplani, A., Awasthi, D., Kulshrestha, V., & Agarwal, N.
Affiliations
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
Corresponding author
Agarwal, Nutan
Venue
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-28
Volume
116
Issue
1
Pages
35-38
ISSN
  • 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
  • 0020-7292
  • 1879-3479
OpenAlex
W2039466335
Cited by
60
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
Keywords
levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, uterine fibroids, menorrhagia, menstrual blood loss, uterine volume, Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, hormonal contraception
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Intrauterine Devices, Medicated, Leiomyoma, Menorrhagia, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Uterine Neoplasms, Treatment Outcome, Levonorgestrel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review