Kessel E
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland.
Fertil Steril. 1989 Jan;51(1):1-11.
This reassessment of IUDs as a risk factor for PID contrasts study results from prospective and case-control studies. Except for a transient increased risk after IUD insertions, increased risk is seen mainly in case-control studies after 1973, the time of a major PID epidemic and adverse publicity related to the Dalkon Shield. Removal of oral contraceptive users from case-control studies generally reduces their reported odds ratios, frequently to borderline statistical significance for studies with high accuracy of PID diagnosis. The remaining elevated odds ratios likely relate to diagnostic bias as primary care clinicians are more likely to refer patients wearing an IUD to referral centers where case-control studies are conducted. Biased case-control studies provided evidence for expensive litigation, resulting in removal of IUDs from the American market. The Food and Drug Administration requirements for postmarketing surveillance are inadequate to provide prospective data to avoid this kind of loss.
将宫内节育器(IUD)重新评估为盆腔炎(PID)的一个风险因素,这与前瞻性研究和病例对照研究的结果形成了对比。除了在放置IUD后短期内风险增加外,风险增加主要见于1973年之后的病例对照研究,这一年是PID大流行以及与Dalkon Shield相关的负面宣传的时期。在病例对照研究中排除口服避孕药使用者,通常会降低所报告的比值比,对于PID诊断准确性高的研究,该比值比常常降至临界统计学显著性水平。其余升高的比值比可能与诊断偏倚有关,因为初级保健临床医生更有可能将佩戴IUD的患者转诊至进行病例对照研究的转诊中心。有偏倚的病例对照研究为代价高昂的诉讼提供了证据,导致IUD从美国市场撤出。美国食品药品监督管理局对上市后监测的要求不足以提供前瞻性数据以避免此类损失。