ArticleInternational journal of women's health2012
Comparing the World Health Organization-versus China-recommended protocol for first-trimester medical abortion: a retrospective analysis.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-derived gestational sac triple product as a predictor of early medical abortion failure with mifepristone-misoprostol regimens: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of stress and depression and associated factors among women seeking a first-trimester induced abortion in China: a cross-sectional study.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion.Trials · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness, in terms of complete abortion, of the World Health Organization (WHO)- and the China-recommended protocol for first-trimester medical abortion.
methodsA retrospective analysis of clinical data from women presenting for first trimester medical abortion between January 2009 and August 2010 at reproductive health clinics in Qingdao, Xi'an, Nanjing, Nanning, and Zhengzhou was conducted. One clinic in Qingdao administered the WHO-recommended protocol (200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 0.8 mg misoprostol buccally 36-48 hours later). Four clinics in the other locations provided the China-recommended procedure (Day 1: 50 mg of mifepristone in the morning, 25 mg in the afternoon; Day 2: 50 mg of mifepristone in the morning, 25 mg in the afternoon; Day 3: 0.6 mg oral misoprostol). Data on reproductive and demographic characteristics were extracted from clinic records, and complete termination was determined on day 14 (post-mifepristone administration).
resultsA total of 337 women underwent early medical abortion (167 WHO- and 170 China-recommended procedures). Complete abortion was significantly higher among women who had the WHO protocol than those who received the China protocol (91.0% vs 77.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). Women using the China-recommended protocol were three times more likely to require an additional dose of misoprostol than women using the WHO protocol (21.8% vs 7.8%, respectively; P < 0.001), and had significantly more bleeding on the day of misoprostol administration (12.5 mL vs 18.5 mL; P < 0.001).
conclusionThis clinical audit provides preliminary evidence suggesting the WHO-recommended protocol may be more effective than the China-recommended protocol for early medical abortion. A larger scale study is necessary to compare the methods' effectiveness and acceptability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.