Cited by 66Reproductive Health and ContraceptionBone health and osteoporosis researchMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

A prospective study of the forearm bone density of users of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants

Bahamondes, Luis, Monteiro-Dantas, Cecilia, Espejo-Arce, Ximena, dos Santos Fernandes, Arlete M., Lui-Filho, Jeffrey F., Perrotti, Marcos, Petta, Carlos A.·2006·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare bone mineral density (BMD) before insertion and at 18 months of use of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. METHODS: One hundred and eleven women, 19-43 years of age, were randomly allocated to two groups: 56 to etonorgestrel and 55 to levonorgestrel. BMD was evaluated at the midshaft of the ulna and at the distal radius of the non-dominant forearm using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry before insertion and at 18 months of use. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline demographic or anthropometric characteristics, or in BMD of users of either model of implant. BMD was significantly lower at 18 months of use at the midshaft of the ulna in both groups of users. However, no difference was found at the distal radius. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the variables associated with BMD at 18 months of use in both implant groups were baseline BMD, body mass index (BMI) and difference in BMI (0 versus 18 months of use). CONCLUSIONS: Women of 19-43 years of age using either one of the implants showed lower BMD at 18 months of use at the midshaft of the ulna, however, without a difference at the distal radius.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dei358

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Bahamondes et al. demonstrated a significant decrease in BMD at the midshaft of the ulna after 18 months from insertion of the ENG implant.

    “Contrarily, Bahamondes et al. [99] demonstrated a significantly decrease in BMD at the midshaft of the ulna after 18 months from the insertion of the device.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bahamondes, L., Monteiro-Dantas, C., Espejo-Arce, X., dos Santos Fernandes, A. M., Lui-Filho, J. F., Perrotti, M., & Petta, C. A.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
Corresponding author
Bahamondes, Luis
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2005-10-27
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
466-470
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2099682112
Cited by
66
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Bank Group
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
contraceptive implants, etonogestrel, levonorgestrel, bone mineral density, forearm bone mineral density, ulna, distal radius, bone loss, body mass index, weight change, women of reproductive age
MeSH terms
Adult, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Drug Implants, Female, Humans, Radius, Ulna, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Levonorgestrel, Desogestrel

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