Evaluation of Intrauterine Devices: Ninth Progress Report of the Cooperative Statistical Program

  • Sarah Lewit

Abstract

This report, by Christopher Tietze, MD, Associate Director of The Population Council’s Bio-Medical Division, and Sarah Lewit, Research Associate in the Bio-Medical Division, is perhaps best introduced by quoting from Louis M. Hellman, MD, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York, College of Medicine:

From 1966 to 1969, the Advisory Committee on Obstetrics and Gynecology to the Food and Drug Administration studied and reported on the safety and efficacy and on other pertinent features of the oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices. On one hand, this task was made more difficult by the paucity of data pertaining to the hormonal contraceptives. On the other hand, the task was eased by an abundance of epidemiologic information about the intrauterine devices. These essential data were derived from the reports of the Cooperative Statistical Program. This project was established in 1963 by the National Committee on Maternal Health and was supported by The Population Council. Under the leadership of Dr. Christopher Tietze, a statistical study design was developed that permitted ongoing analyses of use, effectiveness, and disadvantages of most of the commonly used intrauterine devices. Available for the first time were data about a contraceptive method from its inception. The data were unique, and their value was fully proved by their widespread use. The informative report on intrauterine devices by the Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration is but one example of these reports. The Ninth Report presents the cumulated results of the study, partiOnliney and periodicOnliney presented in the previous reports.

Keywords

Perforation Dura Univer Alan Contraceptive Device 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tietze C. Intra-uterine contraceptive rings: history and statistical appraisal. In: Tietze C, Lewit S, eds. Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Devices. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 54, 1962, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ishihama A. Clinical studies on intrauterine rings, especiOnliney the present state of contraception in Japan and the experience in the use of intrauterine rings. Yokohama Med Bull 1959;10:89–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oppenheimer W. Prevention of pregnancy by the Grafenberg ring method. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1959;78:446–454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Margulies LC. Permanent reversible contraception with an intra-uterine plastic spiral (perma spiral). In: Tietze C, Lewit S, eds. Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Devices. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 54, 1962, pp. 61–68.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tietze C, Lewit S, eds. Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Devices. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 54, 1962, p. 154.Google Scholar
  6. Tietze C. First Progress Report on Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Devices. National Committee on Maternal Health, August 31, 1962 (mimeograph).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Segal SJ, Southam AL, Shafer KD, eds. Intra-Uterine Contraception. Proceedings of the Second International Conference, New York City, October 2–3, 1964. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 86, 1964, pp. viii, 250.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tietze C, Lewit S. Intra-uterine contraception: effectiveness and acceptability. In: Segal SJ, Southam AL, Shafer KD, eds. Intra-Uterine Contraception. Proceedings of the Second International Conference, New York City, October 2–3, 1964. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 86, 1964, pp. 98–110.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burnhill MS, Birnberg CH. Improving the results obtained with current intrauterine contraceptive devices. Fertility and Sterility 1969;20:232–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potter RG. Application of life table techniques to measurement of contraceptive effectiveness. Demography 1966;3:297–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Potter RG. The multiple decrement life table as an approach to the measurement of use effectiveness and demographic effectiveness of contraception. Contributed Papers: Sydney Conference (International Union for the Scientific Study of Population), 1976, pp. 869–883.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tieze C. Intra-uterine contraception: recommended procedures for data analysis. Studies in Family Planning 1967;18(suppl): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tietze C, Lewit S. Size of the Lippes loop: a double-blind study of intrauterine devices. In: Sobrero AJ, Lewit S, eds. Advances in Planned Parenthood IV. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 177, 1969, pp. 80–83.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Potter RG. Use-effectiveness of intrauterine contraception as a problem in competing risks. In: Freedman R, Takeshita JY, eds. Family Planning in Taiwan. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 458–484.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mainland D, Herrera L, Sutcliffe MI. Tables for Use with Binomial Samples. New York: Department of Medical Statistics, New York University College of Medicine, 1956.Google Scholar
  16. Ibid. Table IX.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sarah L. Tietze 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Lewit

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations