title: Pitfalls of research linking the intrauterine device to pelvic inflammatory disease.
abstract: Correctly diagnosing pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) using noninvasive clinical criteria remains challenging. Current guidelines for initiating treatment, based on minimal criteria (sensitive but not specific), are justified for public health purposes but inadequate and misleading for scientific purposes. Previous research on the link between the intrauterine device (IUD) and PID was controversial and subject to many limitations. Even today, these limitations still exist and include uncertainty of the PID diagnosis, unfair contraceptive comparisons, selection and diagnostic bias, and confounding. For example, IUD users are on heightened alert for PID relative to users of other methods. In addition, IUD users with pelvic pain may be more likely to seek physician consultation and consequently receive a PID diagnosis (true-positive or false-positive). Confounding factors such as higher coital frequency, multiple sexual partners, and low condom use may explain any finding that shows a higher PID rate among IUD users compared with other contraceptive users. Good evidence on how or whether the IUD changes the etiology of PID is lacking. In the past 10 years, use of the intrauterine device in the United States has increased markedly. Thus today, researchers may now have sufficient population-level exposure (IUD use) and disease (PID) to search for a connection and repeat past mistakes. Any new findings using observational research should be interpreted with caution. More rigorous research designs may not be pragmatic or feasible.
authors: FHI 360, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and the Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet/Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Hubacher
authors: David A
authors: DA
authors: Grimes
authors: Kristina
authors: K
authors: Gemzell-Danielsson
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007434:Intrauterine Devices / Q000009:adverse effects*; D000292:Pelvic Inflammatory Disease / Q000209:etiology*
references: Hubacher D, Cheng D. Intrauterine devices and reproductive health: American women in feast and famine. Contraception 2004;69:437–46.
references: Edelman DA. Pelvic inflammatory disease and the intrauterine device: a causal relationship? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1980;17:504–14.
references: Burkman RT. Association between intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1981;57:269–76.
references: Lee NC, Rubin GL, Ory HW, Burkman RT. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:1–6.
references: Lee NC, Rubin GL, Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:1–6.
references: Lee NC, Rubin GL, Grimes DA. Measures of sexual behavior and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:425–30.
references: Kronmal RA, Whitney CW, Mumford SD. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease: the Women's Health Study reanalyzed. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:109–22.
references: Vessey MP, Yeates D, Flavel R, McPherson K. Pelvic inflammatory disease and the intrauterine device: findings in a large cohort study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981;282:855–7.
references: Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, Chen JH, Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet 1992;339:785–8.
references: Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet 2000;356:1013–9.
references: Mohllajee AP, Curtis KM, Peterson HB. Does insertion and use of an intrauterine device increase the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease among women with sexually transmitted infection? A systematic review. Contraception 2006;73:145–53.
references: Gareen IF. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease. Curr Womens Health Rep 2003;3:280–7.
references: Gareen IF, Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: meta-analyses of published studies, 1974–1990. Epidemiology 2000;11:589–97.
references: Walsh T, Grimes D, Frezieres R, Nelson A, Bernstein L, Coulson A, et al.. Randomised controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics before insertion of intrauterine devices. IUD Study Group. Lancet 1998;351:1005–8.
references: Hubacher D, Finer LB, Espey E. Renewed interest in intrauterine contraception in the United States: evidence and explanation. Contraception 2011;83:291–4.
references: Riphagen FE, Lehert P. A survey of contraception in five west European countries. J Biosoc Sci 1989;21:23–46.
references: Cibula D. Women's contraceptive practices and sexual behaviour in Europe. Eur J Contraception Reprod Health Care 2008;13:362–75.
references: Romer T, Linsberger D. User satisfaction with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS): data from an international survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2009;14:391–8.
references: Osborne NG, Wright RC. Effect of preoperative scrub on the bacterial flora of the endocervix and vagina. Obstet Gynecol 1977;50:148–51.
references: Mishell DRJ, Bell JH, Good RG, Moyer DL. The intrauterine device: a bacteriologic study of the endometrial cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966;96:119–26.
references: Lewis RA, Taylor D, Natavio MF, Melamed A, Felix J, Mishell D Jr. Effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on cervical mucus quality and sperm penetrability. Contraception 2010;82:491–6.
references: Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril 1994;61:70–7.
references: Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial. Contraception 1994;49:56–72.
references: Finer LB, Jerman J, Kavanaugh ML. Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007–2009. Fertil Steril 2012;98:893–7.
references: Feldblum PJ, Caraway J, Bahamondes L, El-Shafei M, Quan Ha D, Morales E, et al.. Randomized assignment to copper IUD or depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate: feasibility of enrollment, continuation and disease ascertainment. Contraception 2005;72:187–91.
references: Hager WD, Eschenbach DA, Spence MR, Sweet RL. Criteria for diagnosis and grading of salpingitis. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:113–4.
references: Jacobson L, Westrom L. Objectivized diagnosis of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Diagnostic and prognostic value of routine laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;105:1088–98.
references: Simms I, Warburton F, Westrom L. Diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease: time for a rethink. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:491–4.
references: Workowski KA, Berman S. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1–110.
references: Cates W, Rolfs RT, Aral SO. Sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, and infertility: an epidemiologic update. Epidemiol Rev 1990;12:199–220.
references: Berkson J. Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. Biometrics 1946;2:47–53.
references: Boonstra H, Duran V, Northington Gamble V, Blumenthal P, Dominguez L, Pies C. The ‘boom and bust phenomenon’: the hopes, dreams, and broken promises of the contraceptive revolution. Contraception 2000;61:9–25.
references: Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979;32:51–63.
references: Hubacher D, Cardenas C, Hernandez D, Cortes M, Janowitz B. The costs and benefits of IUD follow-up visits in the Mexican Social Security Institute. International Family Planning Perspectives 1999;25:21–6.
references: Hubacher D, Fortney J. Follow-up visits after IUD insertion. Are more better? J Reprod Med 1999;44:801–6.
references: Steward R, Melamed A, Granat A, Mishell DR Jr. Comparison of cervical mucus of 24/4 vs. 21/7 combined oral contraceptives. Contraception 2012;86:710–5.
references: Stuart GS, Grimes DA. Social desirability bias in family planning studies: a neglected problem. Contraception 2009;80:108–12.
references: Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker's guide to the epidemiological galaxy Part 2. Principles of causality in epidemiological research: confounding, effect modification and strength of association. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008;34:185–90.
references: Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, Guerra-Infante F, Guzman-Rodriguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:561–7.
references: Martinez G, Daniels K, Chandra A. Fertility of men and women aged 15-44 years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. Natl Health Stat Report 2012;1–28.
references: Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat 23 2010:1–44.
references: Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283–4.
references: Grimes DA, Schulz KF. False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:920–7.