SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Doctors or mid-level providers for abortion.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical methods for first trimester abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Task shifting in primary care to tackle healthcare worker shortages: An umbrella review.The European journal of general practice · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of first-trimester medical termination of pregnancy performed by non-doctor providers: a systematic review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2017Pooled it
- Doctors or mid-level providers for abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Which Aspects of Abortion Care Do Healthcare Practitioners in Britain Think Nurses/Midwives Should Provide? Findings From the SACHA Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Observational
- Abortion learning mechanisms for nurses and midwives: a scoping review of evidence.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Midwives as agents of change: a qualitative analysis of midwives' experiences with abortion care provision in Canada.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Nurse practitioner medication abortion providers in Canada: results from a national survey.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Article
- Revolution in abortion care? Perspectives of key informants on the importance of abortion method choice in the era of telemedicine.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2023Article
- Nurse practitioners on 'the leading edge' of medication abortion care: A feminist qualitative approach.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
- Barriers and enablers to nurse practitioner implementation of medication abortion in Canada: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Suspected illegal abortion and unsafe abortion leading to uterine rupture and incomplete abortion: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- An empirical evaluation of the impact scenario of pooling bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Views and practice of abortion among Queensland midwives and sexual health nurses.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022Article
- Midwives' integration of post abortion manual vacuum aspiration in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a mixed methods case study & positive deviance assessment.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Barriers to surgery performed by non-physician clinicians in sub-Saharan Africa-a scoping review.Human resources for health · 2020Article
- How task-sharing in abortion care became the norm in Sweden: A case study of historic and current determinants and events.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2020Article
- Preimplantation genetic testing to reduce preterm births in assisted reproductive technology.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2020Review
- A Constructivist Vision of the First-Trimester Abortion Experience.Health and human rights · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends that abortion can be provided at the lowest level of the healthcare system. Training mid-level providers, such as midwives, nurses and other non-physician providers, to conduct first trimester aspiration abortions and manage medical abortions has been proposed as a way to increase women's access to safe abortion procedures.
objectivesTo assess the safety and effectiveness of abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the CENTRAL Issue 7, MEDLINE and POPLINE databases for comparative studies of doctor and mid-level providers of abortion services. We searched for studies published in any language from January 1980 until 15 August 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (clustered or not clustered), prospective cohort studies or observational studies that compared the safety or effectiveness (or both) of any type of first trimester abortion procedure, administered by any type of mid-level provider or doctors, were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened abstracts for eligibility and double-extracted data from the included studies using a pre-tested form. We meta-analysed primary outcome data using both fixed-effect and random-effects models to obtain pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We carried out separate analyses by study design (RCT or cohort) and type of abortion procedure (medical versus surgical). MAIN
resultsEight studies involving 22,018 participants met our eligibility criteria. Five studies (n = 18,962) assessed the safety and effectiveness of surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. Three studies (n = 3056) assessed the safety and effectiveness of medical abortion procedures. The surgical abortion studies (one RCT and four cohort studies) were carried out in the United States, India, South Africa and Vietnam. The medical abortion studies (two RCTs and one cohort study) were carried out in India, Sweden and Nepal. The studies included women with gestational ages up to 14 weeks for surgical abortion and nine weeks for medical abortion.Risk of selection bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs, unclear in four observational studies and high in one observational study. Concealment bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs and high in all five observational studies. Although none of the eight studies performed blinding of the participants to the provider type, we considered the performance bias to be low as this is part of the intervention. Detection bias was considered to be high in all eight studies as none of the eight studies preformed blinding of the outcome assessment. Attrition bias was low in seven studies and high in one, with over 20% attrition. We considered six studies to have unclear risk of selective reporting bias as their protocols had not been published. The remaining two studies had published their protocols. Few other sources of bias were found.Based on an analysis of three cohort studies, the risk of surgical abortion failure was significantly higher when provided by mid-level providers than when procedures were administered by doctors (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.68), however the quality of evidence for this outcome was deemed to be very low. For surgical abortion procedures, we found no significant differences in the risk of complications between mid-level providers and doctors (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.70 from RCTs; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.72 from observational studies). When we combined the data for failure and complications for surgical abortion we found no significant differences between mid-level providers and doctors in both the observational study analysis (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.14) and the RCT analysis (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 59.08). The quality of evidence of the outcome for RCT studies was considered to be low and for observational studies very low. For medical abortion procedures the risk of failure was not different for mid-level providers or doctors (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.36 from RCTs; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.88 from observational studies). The quality of evidence of this outcome for the RCT analysis was considered to be high, although the quality of evidence of the observational studies was considered to be very low. There were no complications reported in the three medical abortion studies. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference in the risk of failure for medical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors. Observational data indicate that there may be a higher risk of abortion failure for surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers, but the number of studies is small and more robust data from controlled trials are needed. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of complications for first trimester surgical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors.
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.