472 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23063337)
1. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of one-rod etonogestrel and two-rod levonorgestrel contraceptive implants with nonrandomized copper-IUD controls: methodology and insertion data.
Meirik O; Brache V; Orawan K; Habib NA; Schmidt J; Ortayli N; Culwell K; Jackson E; Ali M;
Contraception; 2013 Jan; 87(1):113-20. PubMed ID: 23063337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled trial of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants, with non-randomized matched copper-intrauterine device controls.
Bahamondes L; Brache V; Meirik O; Ali M; Habib N; Landoulsi S;
Hum Reprod; 2015 Nov; 30(11):2527-38. PubMed ID: 26409014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of etonogestrel and levonorgestrel contraceptive implants with nonrandomized copper intrauterine device controls: effect on weight variations up to 3 years after placement.
Bahamondes L; Brache V; Ali M; Habib N;
Contraception; 2018 Sep; 98(3):181-187. PubMed ID: 29777663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives.
Modesto W; Bahamondes MV; Bahamondes L
Hum Reprod; 2014 Jul; 29(7):1393-9. PubMed ID: 24812309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prolonged use of the etonogestrel implant and levonorgestrel intrauterine device: 2 years beyond Food and Drug Administration-approved duration.
McNicholas C; Swor E; Wan L; Peipert JF
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 216(6):586.e1-586.e6. PubMed ID: 28147241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intrauterine devices: an effective alternative to oral hormonal contraception.
Prescrire Int; 2009 Jun; 18(101):125-30. PubMed ID: 19637436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Extended use up to 5 years of the etonogestrel-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant: comparison to levonorgestrel-releasing subdermal implant.
Ali M; Akin A; Bahamondes L; Brache V; Habib N; Landoulsi S; Hubacher D;
Hum Reprod; 2016 Nov; 31(11):2491-2498. PubMed ID: 27671673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Two-year continuation of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants in a mixed-payer setting: a retrospective review.
Sanders JN; Turok DK; Gawron LM; Law A; Wen L; Lynen R
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 216(6):590.e1-590.e8. PubMed ID: 28188772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Twelve-month contraceptive continuation and repeat pregnancy among young mothers choosing postdelivery contraceptive implants or postplacental intrauterine devices.
Cohen R; Sheeder J; Arango N; Teal SB; Tocce K
Contraception; 2016 Feb; 93(2):178-83. PubMed ID: 26475368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Long-acting reversible contraception: a review in special populations.
Prescott GM; Matthews CM
Pharmacotherapy; 2014 Jan; 34(1):46-59. PubMed ID: 24130075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review.
Jatlaoui TC; Riley HEM; Curtis KM
Contraception; 2017 Jan; 95(1):17-39. PubMed ID: 27771475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Body weight and composition in users of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.
Dal'Ava N; Bahamondes L; Bahamondes MV; de Oliveira Santos A; Monteiro I
Contraception; 2012 Oct; 86(4):350-3. PubMed ID: 22445431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education.
Luchowski AT; Anderson BL; Power ML; Raglan GB; Espey E; Schulkin J
Contraception; 2014 Jun; 89(6):578-83. PubMed ID: 24656553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Choice of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, etonogestrel implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception after aspiration abortion.
Steinauer JE; Upadhyay UD; Sokoloff A; Harper CC; Diedrich JT; Drey EA
Contraception; 2015 Dec; 92(6):553-9. PubMed ID: 26093190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effects of Implanon on lipid metabolism in comparison with Norplant.
Suherman SK; Affandi B; Korver T
Contraception; 1999 Nov; 60(5):281-7. PubMed ID: 10717780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A 12-month multicenter, randomized study comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with the etonogestrel subdermal implant.
Apter D; Briggs P; Tuppurainen M; Grunert J; Lukkari-Lax E; Rybowski S; Gemzell-Danielsson K
Fertil Steril; 2016 Jul; 106(1):151-157.e5. PubMed ID: 27016644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Weight change at 12 months in users of three progestin-only contraceptive methods.
Vickery Z; Madden T; Zhao Q; Secura GM; Allsworth JE; Peipert JF
Contraception; 2013 Oct; 88(4):503-8. PubMed ID: 23582238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Continuation rates of long-acting methods of contraception. A comparative study of Norplant implants and intrauterine devices.
Fleming D; Davie J; Glasier A
Contraception; 1998 Jan; 57(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 9554246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Acceptability of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system and etonogestrel implant: one-year results of an observational study.
Short M; Dallay D; Omokanye S; Hanisch JU; Inki P
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2012 Feb; 17(1):79-88. PubMed ID: 22200172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Postplacental insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after cesarean delivery vs. delayed insertion: a randomized controlled trial.
Whitaker AK; Endres LK; Mistretta SQ; Gilliam ML
Contraception; 2014 Jun; 89(6):534-9. PubMed ID: 24457061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
