Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29946727›Full record

ArticleJAMA2018

Association of Facility Type With Procedural-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events Among Patients Undergoing Induced Abortions.

Sarah C M Roberts, Ushma D Upadhyay, Guodong Liu, Jennifer L Kerns, Djibril Ba, Nancy Beam, Douglas L Leslie

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Physician procedure volume and related adverse events after surgically induced abortion: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Data Error.JAMA · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah C M RobertsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Ushma D UpadhyayAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Guodong LiuCenter for Applied Studies in Health Economics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer L KernsBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Djibril BaCenter for Applied Studies in Health Economics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Nancy BeamAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
Douglas L LeslieCenter for Applied Studies in Health Economics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania State University · USIbis Reproductive Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Multiple states have laws requiring abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgery center (ASC) standards. There is limited evidence regarding abortion-related morbidities and adverse events following abortions performed at ASCs vs office-based settings. Objective: To compare abortion-related morbidities and adverse events at ASCs vs office-based settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of women with US private health insurance who underwent induced abortions in an ASC or office-based setting (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2014). Outcomes were abstracted from a large national private insurance claims database during the 6 weeks following the abortion (date of final follow-up, February 11, 2015). Exposures: Facility type for abortion (ASCs vs office-based settings, including facilities such as abortion clinics, nonspecialized clinics, and physician offices). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any abortion-related morbidity or adverse event (such as retained products of conception, abortion-related infection, hemorrhage, and uterine perforation) within 6 weeks after an abortion. Two secondary outcomes, both subsets of the primary outcome, were major abortion-related morbidities and adverse events (such as hemorrhages treated with a transfusion, missed ectopic pregnancies treated with surgery, and abortion-related infections that resulted in an overnight hospital admission) and abortion-related infections. Results: Among 49 287 women (mean age, 28 years [SD, 7.3]) who had 50 311 induced abortions, (23 891 [47%] first-trimester aspiration, 13 480 [27%] first-trimester medication, and 12 940 [26%] second trimester or later), 5660 abortions (11%) were performed in ASCs and 44 651 (89%) in office-based settings. Overall, 3.33% had an abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; 0.32% had a major abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; and 0.74% had an abortion-related infection. In adjusted analyses, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs vs office-based settings, respectively, in the rates of abortion-related morbidities or adverse events (3.25% vs 3.33%, difference, -0.08%; [corrected] 95% CI, -0.58% to 0.43%; adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.17), major morbidities or adverse events (0.26% vs 0.33%; difference, -0.06%; 95% CI, -0.18% to 0.06%; adjusted OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.37), or infections (0.58% vs 0.77%; difference, -0.16%; 95% CI, -0.35% to 0.03%; adjusted OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with private health insurance who had an induced abortion, performance of the abortion in an ambulatory surgical center compared with an office-based setting was not associated with a significant difference in abortion-related morbidities and adverse events. These findings, in addition to individual patient and individual facility factors, may inform decisions about the type of facility in which induced abortions are performed.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesPhysicians' OfficesAbortifacient AgentsAbortion, InducedAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHospitalizationHumansInsurance, HealthMiddle AgedMorbidityPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy, EctopicAbortifacient Agents

Identifiers

PMID29946727
PMCPMC6583042
OpenAlexW2810026814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.