BackgroundThe contraceptive injectable is a safe and effective method that is used worldwide. With the variety of injectable delivery systems, there is potential for administration by the woman herself. Self‐administration of the contraceptive injectable is the subject of this systematic review.ObjectivesTo assess how effective and safe the contraceptive injectable method is when women themselves perform/administer it, compared with when the usual healthcare providers administer it.Search strategyWe searched PubMed, Popline, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Embase for articles with subject headings or text words related to ‘self‐administration’ and ‘contraception’.Selection criteriaStudies that compared the administration of the contraceptive injectable by the woman herself versus administration by the healthcare provider were included. Outcomes of interest were continuation rates, safety, and the women's overall satisfaction with the contraceptive provider and method.Data collection and analysisWe undertook data extraction, descriptive analysis, and assessment of risk of bias.Main resultsThree studies met the inclusion criteria. The best available evidence shows that there may be little or no difference in continuation rates when women self‐administer contraceptive injections (326 per 1000 women; 95% CI 192–554 per 1000 women) compared with administration by healthcare providers (304 per 1000 women). Safety was not estimable as no serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies. With regards to overall satisfaction towards the provider and the method, the effect of the intervention was uncertain.Authors’ conclusionsFindings suggest that with appropriate information and training the provision of contraceptive injectables for the woman to self‐administer at home can be an option in some contexts.Tweetable abstractThis review assessed the continuation rates and safety of self‐administration of the contraceptive injection.

In order to evaluate the results of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for the treatment of posteriorly dislocated intraocular lens (PC-IOL), we retrospectively examined and analyzed the hospital records of patients who had undergone PPV to exchange or reposition a PC-IOL dislocated into the vitreous cavity. Of 20 eyes in 20 patients, IOL exchange was performed in 6 eyes, and IOL repositioning in 14 eyes. Posteriorly dislocated IOL occurred in 14 eyes during or within 2 days, and in 6 eyes 6 months after the IOL implantation. Thirteen eyes were surgically treated early after the occurrence, within 3 days, while 7 eyes were treated later, between 5 to 7 days. Compared with preoperative best-corrected visual acuity, the final visual acuity improved more than 2 lines in 12 eyes. With no significant difference on the statistics, earlier visual rehabilitation seemed to be shown in late-treated patients than in early-treated. Accordingly, a posterior dislocation of IOL can be successfully treated with PPV, and barring any serious complications such as retinal detachment, there is no need for surgery immediately following the occurrence.