ArticlePloS one2023
Analysis of uterine evacuation methods in postabortion care after implementation of a surveillance network (CLAP MUSA-Network) at a university hospital.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of uterine evacuation is essential for increasing safe abortion care. Monitoring through surveillance systems tracks changes in clinical practice and provides information to improve equity in abortion care quality.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the frequency of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) and medical abortion (MA), and identify the factors associated with each uterine evacuation method after surveillance network installation at a Brazilian hospital.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included women admitted for abortion or miscarriage to the University of Campinas Women's Hospital, Brazil, between July 2017 and November 2020. The dependent variables were the use of MVA and MA with misoprostol. The independent variables were the patients' clinical and sociodemographic data. The Cochran-Armitage, chi-square, and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as multiple logistic regression analysis, were used to compare uterine evacuation methods.
resultsWe enrolled 474 women in the study, 91.35% of whom underwent uterine evacuation via uterine curettage (78.75%), MVA (9.46%), or MA (11.54%). MVA use increased during the study period (Z = 9.85, p < 0.001). Admission in 2020 (odds ratio [OR] 64.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.79-1086.69) and lower gestational age (OR 0.837; 95% CI 0.724-0.967) were independently associated with MVA, whereas the only factor independently associated with MA was a higher education level (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.30-5.46).
conclusionMVA use increased following the installation of a surveillance network for good clinical practice. Being part of a network that encourages the use of evidence-based methods provides an opportunity for healthcare facilities to increase access to safe abortions.
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.