Etonogestrel Implant Effectiveness
Overview
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Citing Articles
Head-to-head IUS comparison needed.
Plante S Can Fam Physician. 2022; 68(10):717-718.
PMID: 36241400 PMC: 9833133. DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6810717_1.
References
1.
Reed S, Minh T, Lange J, Koro C, Fox M, Heinemann K
. Real world data on Nexplanon® procedure-related events: final results from the Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment study (NORA). Contraception. 2019; 100(1):31-36.
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.03.052.
View
2.
Beerthuizen R, van Beek A, Massai R, Makarainen L, Hout J, Bennink H
. Bone mineral density during long-term use of the progestagen contraceptive implant Implanon compared to a non-hormonal method of contraception. Hum Reprod. 1999; 15(1):118-22.
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.1.118.
View
3.
Apter D, Briggs P, Tuppurainen M, Grunert J, Lukkari-Lax E, Rybowski S
. A 12-month multicenter, randomized study comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(1):151-157.e5.
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.036.
View
4.
Moray K, Chaurasia H, Sachin O, Joshi B
. A systematic review on clinical effectiveness, side-effect profile and meta-analysis on continuation rate of etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Reprod Health. 2021; 18(1):4.
PMC: 7788930.
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-020-01054-y.
View
5.
Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, Shapiro L, Kaunitz A
. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(5):1646-53.
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.140.
View