Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32013926›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2020

Second-trimester abortion attitudes and practices among maternal-fetal medicine and family planning subspecialists.

J L Kerns, J K Turk, C M Corbetta-Rastelli, M G Rosenstein, A B Caughey, J E Steinauer

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J L KernsDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Ward 6D, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. jennifer.kerns@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4399-3893
J K TurkDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Ward 6D, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
C M Corbetta-RastelliDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
M G RosensteinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Ward 6D, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
A B CaugheyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
J E SteinauerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Ward 6D, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USPotrero Medical (United States) · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients deciding to undergo dilation and evacuation (D&E) or induction abortion for fetal anomalies or complications may be greatly influenced by the counseling they receive. We sought to compare maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) and family planning (FP) physicians' attitudes and practice patterns around second-trimester abortion for abnormal pregnancies.

methodsWe surveyed members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Family Planning subspecialists in 2010-2011 regarding provider recommendations between D&E or induction termination for various case scenarios. We assessed provider beliefs about patient preferences and method safety regarding D&E or induction for various indications. We compared responses by specialty using descriptive statistics and conducted unadjusted and adjusted analyses of factors associated with recommending a D&E.

resultsSeven hundred ninety-four (35%) physicians completed the survey (689 MFMs, 105 FPs). We found that FPs had 3.9 to 5.5 times higher odds of recommending D&E for all case scenarios (e.g. 80% of FPs and 41% of MFMs recommended D&E for trisomy 21). MFMs with exposure to family planning had greater odds of recommending D&E for all case scenarios (p < 0.01 for all). MFMs were less likely than FPs to believe that patients prefer D&E and less likely to feel that D&E was a safer method for different indications.

conclusionRecommendations for D&E or induction vary significantly depending on the type of physician providing the counseling. The decision to undergo D&E or induction is one of clinical equipoise, and physicians should provide unbiased counseling. Further work is needed to understand optimal approaches to shared decision making for this clinical decision.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAbortion, InducedAdultCounselingFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMaternal Health ServicesPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'PregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy Trimester, SecondSurveys and QuestionnairesAbortionDilation and evacuationFamily planningInduction terminationMaternal fetal medicineProvider attitudes

Identifiers

PMID32013926
PMCPMC6998287
OpenAlexW3011965356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.