Performance of a handheld point of care ultrasonography to assess IUD position compared to conventional transvaginal ultrasonography

References

• Sayasneh A, Preisler J, Smith A, et al. Do pocket-sized ultrasound machines have the potential to be used as a tool to triage patients in obstetrics and gynecology? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(2):145–150. doi: 10.1002/uog.11184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toscano M, Szlachetka K, Whaley N, et al. Evaluating sensitivity and specificity of handheld point-of-care ultrasound testing for gynecologic pathology: a pilot study for use in low resource settings. BMC Med Imaging. 2020;20(1):121. (published online ahead of print October 27, 2020)doi: 10.1186/s12880-020-00518-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen JK, Sira C, Trovik J. Handheld transabdominal ultrasound, after limited training, may confirm first trimester viable intrauterine pregnancy: a prospective cohort study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2021;39(2):123–130. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2021.1910643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajwa SJS, Kurdi MS, Sutagatti JG, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for the assessment of volume status and fluid management in patients with severe pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Anaesth. 2021;65(10):716–730. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_820_21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leggett CB, Naqvi M, Esakoff TF, et al. Incorporating personal-device-based point-of-care ultrasound into obstetric care: a validation study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226(4):552.e1-552–e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini TJ, Castaneda B, Iyer R, et al. Breast ultrasound volume sweep imaging: a new horizon in expanding imaging access for breast cancer detection. J Ultrasound Med. 2023;42(4):817–832. doi: 10.1002/jum.16047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toscano M, Marini TJ, Drennan K, et al. Testing telediagnostic obstetric ultrasound in Peru: a new horizon in expanding access to prenatal ultrasound. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):328. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03720-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corte G, Bayat S, Tascilar K, et al. Performance of a handheld ultrasound device to assess articular and periarticular pathologies in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(7):1139. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11071139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baribeau Y, Sharkey A, Chaudhary O, et al. Handheld. Point-of-care ultrasound probes: the new generation of POCUS. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020;34(11):3139–3145. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.07.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, et al. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception. 2014;89(3):162–173. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2019). Contraceptive Use by Method 2019: data Booklet (ST/ESA/SER.A/435) https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2019_contraceptiveusebymethod_databooklet.pdf. (Accessed December 2023).
   Google Scholar
• de Kroon CD, van Houwelingen JC, Trimbos JB, et al. The value of transvaginal ultrasound to monitor the position of an intrauterine device after insertion. A Technology Assessment Study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2323–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker CC, Creinin MD. Long-Acting reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140(5):883–897. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maged AM, Nada AM, Abdelwahab H, et al. The value of ultrasound guidance during IUD insertion in women with RVF uterus: a randomized controlled trial. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(4):101875. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Reproductive health and research., 5th edn. Geneva: world Health Organization; 2015. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549158 (Accessed June 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Averbach SH, Ermias Y, Jeng G, et al. Expulsion of intrauterine devices after postpartum placement by timing of placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(2):177–188. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laporte M, Marangoni M, Jr, Surita F, et al. Postplacental placement of intrauterine devices: a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2020;101(3):153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.12.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marangoni M, Jr, Laporte M, Surita F, et al. One-year follow up on post-placental IUD insertion: a randomized clinical trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(4):596–603. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jatlaoui TC, Riley HEM, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2017;95(1):17–39. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterfly iQ. (product information). Butterfly Network, Inc., Burlington, MA USA, 2023
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: vienna, Austria, 2014. http://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed February 2023).
   Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical challenges of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Committee opinion no. 672. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e69-77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golightly E, Gebbie AE. Low-lying or malpositioned intrauterine devices and systems. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(2):108–112. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100684.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moschos E, Twickler DM. Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1439–1443. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15-44: united States, 2011-2013. NCHS Data Brief. 2014;173(173):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women, 2009-2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–927. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: implants and Intrauterine Devices. Practice Bulletin No. 186. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:e251-69.
   Google Scholar
• Recker F, Weber E, Strizek B, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303(4):871–876. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-05972-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar