Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: Randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen


      This study was undertaken to determine whether 400 mg of prophylactic ibuprofen can alleviate pain from insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) and to measure level of pain with improved techniques.

      Study design

      We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 2019 first-time IUD users: 1008 women received placebo and 1011 women received 400 mg of ibuprofen. Participants took the single tablet at least 45 minutes before IUD insertion. Immediately after insertion, participants recorded level of pain by using a 10-cm visual analog scale, with the value of 10 meaning “worst imaginable pain.”


      Median level of pain was 1.0 for both ibuprofen and placebo participants; rank test statistics confirmed no difference. Some subgroups of women experienced higher pain (eg, nulliparous women), but ibuprofen still had no important impact on level of pain.


      Even among first-time users, pain from IUD insertion is generally low. Prophylactic ibuprofen as used in this protocol does not reduce IUD insertion pain.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Contraceptive Use 2003. Available at: Accessed on February 28, 2006.

        • Hollingworth B.
        Pain control during insertion of an intrauterine device.
        Br J Fam Plann. 1995; 21: 103-104
        • Mosher W.D.
        • Martinez G.M.
        • Chandra A.
        • Abma J.C.
        • Willson S.J.
        Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982-2002.
        Adv Data. 2004; : 1-36
      2. Population Reference Bureau. Family Planning Worldwide 2002 Data Sheet. Available at: Accessed on March 2, 2006.

        • Farley T.M.
        • Rosenberg M.J.
        • Rowe P.J.
        • Chen J.H.
        • Meirik O.
        Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective.
        Lancet. 1992; 339: 785-788
        • Hubacher D.
        • Lara-Ricalde R.
        • Taylor D.J.
        • Guerra-Infante F.
        • Guzman-Rodriguez R.
        Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women.
        N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 561-567
        • Grimes D.A.
        • Schulz K.F.
        Prophylactic antibiotics for intrauterine device insertion: a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled trials.
        Contraception. 1999; 60: 57-63
      3. US Food and Drug Administration. Summary view: safety labeling changes approved by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); September 2005. Available at: Accessed on March 12, 2006.

        • Farr G.
        • Amatya R.
        Contraceptive efficacy of the copper T380A and the multiload Cu250 IUD in three developing countries.
        Adv Contracept. 1994; 10: 137-149
        • Farr G.
        • Amatya R.
        Contraceptive efficacy of the copper T 380A and copper T 200 intrauterine devices: results from a comparative clinical trial in six developing countries.
        Contraception. 1994; 49: 231-243
        • Lassner K.J.
        • Chen C.H.
        • Kropsch L.A.
        • Oberle M.W.
        • Lopes I.M.
        • Morris L.
        Comparative study of safety and efficacy of IUD insertions by physicians and nursing personnel in Brazil.
        Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1995; 29: 206-215
        • Goldstuck N.D.
        A comparison of the initial pain response following insertion of the copper 7 and combined multiload Copper 250-short IUDs.
        Contracept Deliv Syst. 1981; 2: 295-301
        • Seamark C.
        Is the fitting of an intrauterine contraceptive device a painful experience?.
        Br J Fam Plann. 1993; 19: 229-231
        • Chi I.C.
        • Galich L.F.
        • Tauber P.F.
        • Wilkens L.R.
        • Waszak C.S.
        • Siemens A.J.
        • et al.
        Severe pain at interval IUD insertion: a case-control analysis of patient risk factors.
        Contraception. 1986; 34: 483-495
        • Chi I.C.
        • Wilkens L.R.
        • Champion C.B.
        • Machemer R.E.
        • Rivera R.
        Insertional pain and other IUD insertion-related rare events for breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women—a decade's experience in developing countries.
        Adv Contracept. 1989; 5: 101-119
        • Grimes D.
        Intrauterine devices (IUDs). Contraceptive technology.
        in: 18th ed. Ardent Medic, Inc, New York2004: 495-530
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Intrauterine device.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105 (ACOG practice bulletin no. 59): 223-232
        • Massey S.E.
        • Varady J.C.
        • Henzl M.R.
        Pain relief with naproxen following insertion of an intrauterine device.
        J Reprod Med. 1974; 13: 226-231
        • Jensen H.H.
        • Blaabjerg J.
        • Lyndrup J.
        Profylaktisk brug af prostaglandinsynthesehaemmere ved oplaegning af spiral.
        Ugeskr Laeger. 1998; 160: 6958-6961
        • Penney G.
        • Brechin S.
        • de Souza A.
        • Bankowska U.
        • Belfield T.
        • Gormley M.
        • et al.
        FFPRHC Guidance (January 2004). The copper intrauterine device as long-term contraception.
        J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004; 30: 29-41
        • Oloto E.J.
        • Bromham D.R.
        • Murty J.A.
        Pain and discomfort perception at IUD insertion-effect of short-duration, low-volume, intracervical application of two percent lignocain gel (Instillagel)-a preliminary study.
        Br J Fam Plann. 1996; 22: 177-180
        • Roy S.
        • Shaw Jr., S.T.
        Role of prostaglandins in IUD-associated uterine bleeding—effect of a prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor (ibuprofen).
        Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 58: 101-106
        • Makarainen L.
        • Ylikorkala O.
        Ibuprofen prevents IUCD-induced increases in menstrual blood loss.
        BJOG. 1986; 93: 285-288
        • Hubacher D.
        • Reyes V.
        • Lillo S.
        • Pierre-Louis B.
        • Zepeda A.
        • Chen P.L.
        • et al.
        Preventing copper intrauterine device removals due to side effects among first-time users: randomized trial to study the effect of prophylactic ibuprofen.
        Hum Reprod. 2006; 21: 1467-1472
        • Moher D.
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Altman D.G.
        The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.
        Lancet. 2001; 357: 1191-1194
        • Sriwatanakul K.
        • Kelvie W.
        • Lasagna L.
        • Calimlim J.F.
        • Weis O.F.
        • Mehta G.
        Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain.
        Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1983; 34: 234-239
        • Mantha S.
        • Thisted R.
        • Foss J.
        • Ellis J.E.
        • Roizen M.F.
        A proposal to use confidence intervals for visual analog scale data for pain measurement to determine clinical significance.
        Anesth Analg. 1993; 77: 1041-1047
        • Church L.
        • Oliver L.
        • Dobie S.
        • Madigan D.
        • Ellsworth A.
        Analgesia for colposcopy: double-masked, randomized comparison of ibuprofen and benzocaine gel.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 5-10
        • White M.K.
        • Ory H.W.
        • Rooks J.B.
        • Rochat R.W.
        Intrauterine device termination rates and the menstrual cycle day of insertion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 55: 220-224