ReviewContraception: X2020
Medical regimens for abortion at 12 weeks and above: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Contraception: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of mifepristone-misoprostol regimen versus misoprostol-only for medication abortion at 22 + 0/7 to 30 + 0/7 weeks' gestation.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Second-Trimester Medical Abortion with Misoprostol Preceded by Two Sequential Doses of Mifepristone: An Observational Study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMifepristone and misoprostol are recommended for second-trimester medical abortion, but consensus is unclear on the ideal regimen.
objectivesThe objectives were to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating efficacy, safety and satisfaction of medical abortion at ≥ 12 weeks' gestation. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Popline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 2008 to May 2017. STUDY ELIGIBILITY PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsWe included RCTs on medical abortion at ≥ 12 weeks' gestation using mifepristone and/or misoprostol. We excluded studies with spontaneous abortion, fetal demise and mechanical cervical ripening and those not reporting ongoing pregnancy (OP). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methodsAfter extracting prespecified data and assessing risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane handbook, we used Revman5 software to combine data and GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
resultsWe included 43 of the 1894 references identified. Combination mifepristone-misoprostol had lower rates of OP [risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.35] vs. misoprostol only. A 24-h interval between mifepristone and misoprostol had lower OP rate at 24 h than simultaneous dosing (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.23-7.94). Every 3-h dosing had lower OP rate at 48 h (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.88). LIMITATIONS: Direct comparisons of buccal misoprostol to sublingual or vaginal routes after mifepristone were limited. Evidence from clinical trials on how to best manage women with prior uterine incisions was lacking.
conclusionOur analysis supports the use of mifepristone 200 mg 1 to 2 days before misoprostol 400 mcg vaginally every 3 h at ≥ 12 weeks' gestation. IMPLICATIONS: Where available, providers should use mifepristone plus misoprostol for second-trimester medical abortion. Vaginal misoprostol appears to be most efficacious with fewest side effects, but sublingual and buccal routes are also acceptable.
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.