KazmerskiT, McCauleyHL, JonesK, et al.Use of reproductive and sexual health services among female family planning clinic clients exposed to partner violence and reproductive coercion. Matern Child Health J, 2015; 19(7):1490–1496; doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1653-2
2.
CreininMD, SchreiberCA, TurokDK, et al.Levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system efficacy and safety through 8 years of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2022; 227(6):871.e1–871.e7; doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.022
3.
JensenJ., Lukkari-LaxE, SchulzeA, et al.Contraceptive efficacy and safety of the 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system for up to 8 years: Findings from the Mirena Extension Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2022; 227(6):873.e1–873.e12; doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.09.007
4.
InkiP, HurskainenR, PaloP, et al.Comparison of ovarian cyst formation in women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. hysterectomy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2002; 20(4):381; doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00805.x
5.
MittalS.Emergency contraception: Which is the best?. Minerva Ginecol, 2016; 68(6):687–699.
6.
ClelandK, ZhuH, GoldstuckN, et al.The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: A systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum Reprod, 2012; 27(7):1994–2000; doi: 10.1093/humrep/des140
7.
TurokDK, GeroA, SimmonsRG, et al.Contraception. NEJM, 2021; 384(4):335; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022141
8.
BakenRaA, GeroA, SandersJ, et al.Pregnancy risk by frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse before intrauterine device placement for emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol, 2021; 138(1):79–84; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004433
9.
RoweP, FarleyT, PeregoudovA, et al.Safety and efficacy in parous women of a 52-mg levonorgestrel-medicated intrauterine device: A 7-year randomized comparative study with the TCu380A. Contraception, 2016; 93(6):498–506; 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.02.024
10.
SandersJN, TurokDK, RoyerPA, et al.One-year continuation of copper or levonorgestrel intrauterine devices initiated at the time of emergency contraception. Contraception, 2017; 96(2):99–105; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.05.012
11.
RichardsonAR, MaltzFN. Ulipristal acetate: Review of the efficacy and safety of a newly approved agent for emergency contraception. Clin Ther, 2012; 34(1):24–36; doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.012
12.
GlasierAF, CameronST, FinePM, et al.Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: A randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet, 2010; 375(9714):555–562; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60101-8
13.
PiaggioG, KappN, HertzenH. Effect on pregnancy rates of the delay in the administration of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: A combined analysis of four WHO trials. Contraception, 2011; 84(1):35–39; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.11.010
14.
GlasierA, CameronST, BlitheD, et al.Can we identify women at risk of pregnancy despite using emergency contraception? Data from randomized trials of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Contraception, 2011; 84(4):363–367; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.02.009
15.
EdelmanAB, HenneboldJD, BondK, et al.Double dosing levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception for individuals with obesity: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol, 2022; 140(1):48–54; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004717
16.
ShenJ, CheY, ShowellE, et al.Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 8(8):CD001324; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub5
17.
JaminC.Contraception d'urgence: différence d'efficacité entre lévonorgestrel et ulipristal acétate selon le diamètre folliculaire au moment du rapport non protégé [Emergency contraception: Efficacy difference between levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate depending on the follicular size at the time of an unprotected sexual intercourse]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil, 2015; 43(3):242–247. [In French]; doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.01.010.
18.
Gemzell-DanielssonK, TrussellJ. UPA > LNG, but not good enough. Contraception, 2013; 88(5):585–586; doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.08.007
