Google Scholar | Citations: 16429| h-index: 32 | i10-index: 482
Relationship between pelvic inflammatory disease and the use of intrauterine devices
PDF (Portuguese (Brazil))

Keywords

Intrauterine Device
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
Adverse Effects

How to Cite

Relationship between pelvic inflammatory disease and the use of intrauterine devices. (2024). Electronic Journal Collection Health, 24(2), e15151. https://doi.org/10.25248/reas.e15151.2024

Copyright © | All rights reserved.

The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.

Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.

Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.

Abstract

Objective: Elucidate the relationship between the use of Intrauterine Devices and Pelvic Inflammation. Methods: This is an integrative review, carried out by a bibliographic survey in the LILACS and PUBMED databases, in Portuguese and English languages, corresponding to the period between the years 2017 and 2022. Our studies apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria, in addition, the methodologies applied and the results achieved by the authors were observed. Results: 1515 articles were found, after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 43 forums were chosen for complete reading, after analysis, 6 forum articles selected and subject to a thorough analysis. Considerations: The relationship between the intrauterine device (IUD) and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is not very prevalent, with rare reports, in the order of 3%. Most gynecologists safely prescribe IUDs for nulliparous women suggesting that, with proper guidance and adequate medical monitoring, the benefits of IUDs outweigh the risk of PID.

PDF (Portuguese (Brazil))

References

ALMEIDA LC. Métodos Contraceptivos: uma revisão bibliográfica. Tese (Especialização em Saúde da Família) – Núcleo de Educação em Saúde Coletiva. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. 2011; 65p.

BEYEA SC, NICOLL LH. Writing an integrative review. AORN J. 1998; 67(4): 877-80.

BORGES ALV, et al. Conhecimento e interesse em usar o dispositivo intrauterino entre mulheres usuárias de unidades de saúde. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2020; 28: e3232.

BRIGGS J. Institute reviewers manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2014; 2014: 88-91.

CASILLAS-VEGA N, et al. Frequency and genotypes of Chlamydia trachomatis in patients attending the obstetrics and gynecology clinics in Jalisco, Mexico and correlation with sociodemographic, behavioral, and biological factors. BMC Women's Health. 2017; 17: 1-9.

ELKHATEEB RR, et al. The acceptability of using IUDs among Egyptian nulliparous women: a cross-sectional study. BMC Women's Health. 2020; 20(1): 1-6.

FERNANDES BT, et al. Dispositivo intrauterino e doença inflamatória pélvica: uma real associação? Revista Interdisciplinar de Saúde e Educação. 2021; 2(2): 15.

GANONG LH. Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health. 1987; 10(1): 1-11.

GIORDANO MV, et al. Dispositivo intrauterino de cobre. Femina. 2015; 43(1): 15-20.

HOLANDA AAR, et al. Controvérsias acerca do dispositivo intrauterino: uma revisão. Femina. 2013; 41(1): 142-145.

JATLAOUI TC, et al. A segurança dos dispositivos intrauterinos entre mulheres jovens: uma revisão sistemática. Contracepção. 2017; 95(1): 17-39.

JUNGES JR. Ética na pesquisa com humanos a partir da nova resolução n. 466/12. Conselho editorial. 2014; 19: 91.

MELLO AT, et al. Doença inflamatória pélvica. Acta médica. 2014; 35: 6.

MELO GHR, et al. Doença inflamatória pélvica: fisiopatologia, investigação diagnóstica e manejo terapêutico Pelvic inflammatory disease: pathophysiology, diagnostic research and therapeutic management. Brazilian Journal of Development. 2021; 7(10): 98440-98453.

MENDES KDS, et al. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto e contexto – Enfermagem. 2008; 17(4): 758-764.

MHLANGA FG, et al. Feasibility and safety of IUD insertion by mid-level providers in sub-Saharan Africa. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health. 2019; 45: 61.

PEREIRA FAC, et al. A importância do dispositivo intra-uterino (diu). Revista Científica. 2021; 1(1).

SCHEER IO, et al. Abordagem da doença inflamatória pélvica: uma revisão de literatura. Brazilian Journal of Health Review. 2021; 4(1): 169-187.

SILVA GM, et al. Obesidade como fator agravante da COVID-19 em adultos hospitalizados: revisão integrativa. Acta paulista de enfermagem. 2021; 34: eAPE02321.

TRIGUEIRO TH, et al. Inserção de dispositivo intrauterino por médicos e enfermeiros em uma maternidade de risco habitual. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem. 2021; 42: 20.

URGELLÉS CS, et al. Caracterización clínica epidemiológica de pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria pélvica tumoral. Revista Cubana de Medicina Militar. 2021; 50(1).

URSI ES, GAVÃO CM. Prevenção de lesões de pele no perioperatório: revisão integrative de literature. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2006; 14(1): 124-131.

WHITTEMORE R, KNAFL K. The integrative review: update methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005; 52(5): 546-53.

ZIMMERMANN Y, et al. Opinions and perceptions concerning the use of intrauterine devices by nulliparous and multiparous women: an online survey study. International journal of women's health. 2019; 11: 153-159.