Corrigendum: Provision of intrauterine contraception in association with first trimester induced abortion reduces the need of repeat abortion: First-year results of a randomized controlled trial (Human Reproduction (2015) 30 (2539-2546) DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev233);Provision of intrauterine contraception in association with first trimester induced abortion reduces the need of repeat abortion: First-year results of a randomized controlled trial

Human Reproduction

Volumn 30, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 2539-2546

  Pohjoranta, Elina ^a   Mentula, Maarit ^a   Gissler, Mika ^b   Suhonen, Satu ^c   Heikinheimo, Oskari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c Centralized Family Planning Department of Social Services and Health Care City of Helsinki   (Finland)

Author keywords

abortion registry; counselling; induced abortion; intrauterine contraception; repeat abortion

Indexed keywords

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COPPER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE; DATA BASE; FEMALE; FINLAND; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; FOLLOW UP; GENITAL TRACT INFECTION; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; INTRAUTERINE DEVICE EXPULSION; LEVONORGESTREL RELEASING INTRAUTERINE SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGICAL ABORTION; TREATMENT CONTRAINDICATION; UTERUS MALFORMATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNPLANNED PREGNANCY;

ABORTION, INDUCED; ADULT; FEMALE; FINLAND; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTRAUTERINE DEVICES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PREGNANCY, UNPLANNED;

EID: 84946405532     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey376     Document Type: Erratum

References (38)

1. Ames C, Norman W. Preventing repeat abortion in Canada: is the immediate insertion of intrauterine devices postabortion a cost-effective option associated with fewer repeat abortions? Contraception 2012;85:51-55.
2. BajosN, Lamarche-VadelA,GilbertF,FerrandM;COCONGroup,MoreauC, Bouyer J, Ducot B, Hassoun D, Goulard H et al. Contraception at the time of abortion: high-risk time or high-risk women? Hum Reprod 2006;21: 2862-2867.
3. Bednarek PH, Creinin MD, Reeves MF, Cwiak C, Espey E, Jensen JT. Immediate versus delayed IUD insertion after uterine aspiration. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2208-2217.
4. Blumenthal PD, Voedisch A, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception. Hum Reprod Update 2011;1:121-137.
5. Cameron ST, Berugoda N, Johnstone A, Glasier A. Assessment of a 'fast-track' referral service for intrauterine contraception following early medical abortion. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2012a;38: 175-178.
6. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Chen ZE, Johnstone A, Dunlop C, Heller R. Effect of contraception provided at termination of pregnancy and incidence of subsequent termination of pregnancy. BJOG 2012b;119: 1074-1080.
7. Gissler M, Ulander VM, Hemminki E, Rasimus A. Declining induced abortion rate in Finland: data quality of the Finnish abortion register. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:376-380.
8. Gissler M, Fronteira I, Jahn A, Karro H, Moreau C, Oliveira da Silva M, Olsen J, Savona-Ventura C, Temmerman M, Hemminki E et al. Terminations of pregnancy in the European Union. BJOG 2012;119:324-332.
9. GoodmanS, Hendlish SK, ReevesMF, Foster-Rosales A. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception 2008;78:143-148.
10. Grimes D, Lopez L, Schulz K, Stanwood N. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD001777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001777.pub3.
11. Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S. Age, parity, history of abortion and contraceptive choices affect the risk of repeated abortion. Contraception 2008;78:149-154.
12. ISD Scotland. Abortion statistics. 2013. http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Sexual-Health/Publications/2013-05-28/2013-05-28-Abortions-Report.pdf (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
13. Jones RK, Jerman J. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011. Guttmacher Institute 2011. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014; 46:3-14.
14. Kaislasuo J, Heikinheimo O, Lähteenmäki P, Suhonen S. Menstrual characteristics and ultrasonographic uterine measurements predict bleeding and pain in nulligravid women using intrauterine contraception. Hum Reprod 2015;30:1580-1588.
15. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Finlex Data Bank. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1970/19700359?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika% 5D=keskeyttamisesta (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
16. National Institute for Health andWelfare, Finland. 2014. Induced abortions 2013. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2014101645230 (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
17. National Institute for Health andWelfare, Finland. 2015a. Induced abortions in the Nordic countries 2013. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2015032 62027 (26 June 2015, date last accessed).
18. National Institute for Health andWelfare, Finland, 2015b. https://www.thl. fi/en/web/thlfi-en/statistics/information-on-statistics/register-descriptions/register-of-induced-abortions (26 June 2015, date last accessed).
19. Niinimäki M, Pouta A, Bloigu A, Gissler M, Hemminki E, Suhonen S, Heikinheimo O. Frequency and risk factors for repeat abortions after surgical compared with medical termination of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:845-852.
20. Pakarinen P, Toivonen J, Luukkainen T. Randomized comparison of levonorgestrel-and copper-releasing systems immediately after abortion, with 5 years' follow-up. Contraception 2003;68:31-34.
21. Pohjoranta E, Suhonen S, Heikinheimo O. Attendance at post-abortal follow-up visits is low-can the risks of non-attendance be identified? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:543-546.
22. Roberts H, Silva M, Xu S. Post-abortion contraception and its effect on repeat abortions in Auckland, New Zealand. Contraception 2010;82: 260-265.
23. Rose SB, Lawton BA. Impact of long-acting reversible contraception on return for repeat abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:e1-e6.
24. Saäv I, Stephansson O, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Early versus delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after medical abortion- A randomized controlled trial. Plos ONE 2012;7:e48948.
25. Salcedo J, Sorensen A, Rodriquez MI. Cost analysis of immediate postabortal IUD insertion compared to planned IUD insertion at the time of follow-up. Contraception 2013;87:404-408.
26. Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C et al. Provision of no-cost, longacting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2014;371: 1316-1323.
27. Sedgh G, Bankole A, Singh S, Eilers M. Legal abortion levels and trends by woman's age at termination. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2013;45: 13-22.
28. Stanek A, Bednarek P, Nichols M, Jensen J, Edelman A. Barriers associated with the failure to return to intrauterine device insertion following first-trimester abortion. Contraception 2009;79:216-220.
29. Suhonen S, Haukkamaa M, JakobssonT, Rauramo I. Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: A comparative study. Contraception 2004;69: 407-412.
30. The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. Induced abortion, Current Care Guidelines. 2013.www.kaypahoito.fi (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
31. The National Board of Health and Welfare, Sweden. Abortion statistics 2012. http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/SiteCollectionDocuments/statistikaborter-2012.pdf (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
32. Trussel J, Henry N, Hassan F, Prezioso A, Law A, Filonenko A. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception 2013;87:154-164.
33. UKMEC. Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Health Care. UK Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2nd edn. 2009. http://www.fsrh.org/pdfs/UKMEC2009.pdf (6 September 2015, date last accessed).
34. UK government. Abortion statistics England and Wales 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment-data/file/319460/Abortion-Statistics-England-and-Wales-2013.pdf (25 January 2015, date last accessed).
35. WHO. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 5th edn. 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181468/1/9789241549158-eng. pdf?ua=1 (6 September 2015, date last accessed).
36. WHO. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. 2012. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434- eng.pdf (6 September 2015, date last accessed).
37. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1998-2007.
38. Yen S, Saah T, Hillard PJ. IUDs and adolescents-an under-utilized opportunity for pregnancy prevention. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2010; 23:123-128.