Cited by 127Reproductive Health and ContraceptionBone health and osteoporosis researchMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

Bone mineral density during long-term use of the progestagen contraceptive implant Implanon® compared to a non-hormonal method of contraception

Beerthuizen, Rob, van Beek, Agaath, Massai, Rebeca, Mäkäräinen, Leo, Hout, Joanneke in't, Bennink, Herjan Coelingh·2000·Human Reproduction

Abstract

An open, prospective, comparative study was done in healthy women, aged between 18 and 40 years, to study the effects of long-term etonogestrel treatment on bone mineral density (BMD). The control group used a non-hormone-medicated intrauterine device (IUD). The BMD was measured using a dual energy X-ray absorptiometry instrument. Measurements included the lumbar spine (L(2)-L(4)), the proximal femur (femoral neck, Ward's triangle, trochanter) and distal radius. The period of treatment was 2 years and 44 women in the Implanon group and 29 in the IUD group provided data. Groups were comparable at baseline with respect to age, weight, body mass index, BMD and 17beta-oestradiol status. Changes from baseline in BMD in the Implanon group were not essentially different from those in the IUD group. There was no relationship between 17beta-oestradiol concentrations and changes in BMD in this study population. The results of the present study indicate that Implanon((R)) can safely be used in young women who have not yet achieved their peak bone mass.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/15.1.118

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In a prospective comparative study, changes from baseline in BMD in the ENG implant group were comparable to those in a non-hormone medicated IUS group.

    “The effect of ENG-implant on BMD was compared to a non-hormone medicated IUS. Changes from baseline on the ENG-group were comparable from those in the IUS group.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beerthuizen, R., van Beek, A., Massai, R., Mäkäräinen, L., Hout, J. I., & Bennink, H. C.
Affiliations
Streekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix (NL)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2000-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
118-122
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2101744447
Cited by
127
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Keywords
bone mineral density, Implanon, etonogestrel, contraceptive implants, progestogens, intrauterine devices, non-hormonal contraception, osteoporosis risk, estradiol, young women, peak bone mass
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Body Weight, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Drug Implants, Estradiol, Female, Femur, Humans, Intrauterine Devices, Prospective Studies, Radius, Vinyl Compounds, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Desogestrel, Progesterone Congeners

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