Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254113›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Surgical versus medical methods for second trimester induced abortion.

P A Lohr, J L Hayes, K Gemzell-Danielsson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04160221 (Second Trimester Medical Abortion- New Strategies), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04160221 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Second Trimester Medical Abortion- New Strategies

TypeinterventionalSponsorSheba Medical CenterRan2019 to 2024Enrolled80ConditionsMedical Abortion, Complete or Unspecified, Without ComplicationArms12 hours interval, 24 hours interval
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  6. Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. AstragalusBioMedicine · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

P A Lohr
J L Hayes
K Gemzell-Danielsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the optimal method of performing second-trimester abortions is important, since they account for a disproportionate amount of abortion-related morbidity and mortality.

objectivesTo compare surgical and medical methods of inducing abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy with regard to efficacy, side effects, adverse events, and acceptability. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified trials using Pub Med, EMBASE, POPLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also searched the reference lists of identified studies, relevant review articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings for additional, previously unidentified studies. We contacted experts in the field for information on other published or unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing any surgical to any medical method of inducing abortion at >/= 13 weeks' gestation were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the validity of each study using the methods suggested in the Cochrane Handbook. Investigators were contacted as needed to provide additional information regarding trial conduct or outcomes. Two reviewers abstracted the data. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous variables using RevMan 4.2. The trials did not have uniform interventions, therefore, we were unable to combine them into a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsTwo studies met criteria for this review. One compared dilation and evacuation (D&E) to intra-amniotic instillation of prostaglandin F(2) (alpha). The second study compared D&E to induction with mifepristone and misoprostol. Compared with prostaglandin instillation, the combined incidence of minor complications was lower with D&E (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.65) as was the total number of minor and major complications (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.46). The number of women experiencing adverse events was also lower with D&E than with mifepristone and misoprostol (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.76). Although women treated with mifepristone and misoprostol reported significantly more pain than those undergoing D&E, efficacy and acceptability were the same in both groups. In both trials, fewer subjects randomised to D&E required overnight hospitalisation. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDilation and evacuation is superior to instillation of prostaglandin F(2) (alpha). The current evidence also appears to favour D&E over mifepristone and misoprostol, however larger randomised trials are needed.

Indexed as

Abortifacient AgentsPregnancy Trimester, SecondAbortion, InducedDilatation and CurettageDinoprostFemaleHumansMifepristoneMisoprostolPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAbortifacient AgentsDinoprostMifepristoneMisoprostol

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.