Advanced search×

Contraceptive device.

Robert E RE Kravetz

Am J Gastroenterol 102(7):1352 (2007) PMID 17593157

DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01366.x
Version: za2963e q8zae q8zbb q8zc5 q8zdf q8zea q8zfd q8zg5

Similar articles you may find interesting…

  1. Weight change at 12 months in users of three progestin-only contraceptive methods.
    Zevidah Vickery, Tessa Madden, and Jeffrey F Peipert

    Contraception (2013) PMID 23582238

    We enrolled a total of 427 women: 130 ENG implant users, 130 LNG-IUS users, 67 DMPA users and 100 copper IUD users. The mean weight change (in kilograms) over 12 months was 2.1 for ENG implant users [standard deviation (SD)=6.7]; 1.0 for LNG-IUS users (SD=5.3); 2.2 for DMPA users (SD=4.9) and 0.2 fo...
  2. [Glucocorticoids and… infections, doping, surgery, sexuality.]
    O Grossi and T Généreau

    Rev Med Interne (2013) PMID 23415059

    The risk of infection is increased in patients treated with glucocorticoids, especially in those taking long-term and high dosage treatment. However, there is little valid practice for the prevention of infections in this patient population. The risk of reactivation or worsening of a...
  3. Cost analysis of immediate postabortal IUD insertion compared to planned IUD insertion at the time of abortion follow up.
    Jennifer J Salcedo, Andrea A Sorensen, and Maria I MI Rodriguez

    Contraception 87(4):404-8 (2013) PMID 23312934

    Considering only direct costs of contraception and pregnancy-related care over 1 year, immediate postabortal IUD provision decreases public program expenditures by US$111 per woman compared to planned IUD placement at follow up. Over 5 years, the savings increases to $4296 per woman, when public hea...