Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38779333›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2024

PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Julia H Littell, Sarah Young, Therese D Pigott, M Antonia Biggs, Trine Munk-Olsen, Julia R Steinberg

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2024. 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia H LittellGraduate School of Social Work and Social Research Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2623-9728
Sarah YoungHunt Library Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA.
Therese D PigottCollege of Education and Human Development Georgia State University Atlanta Georgia USA.
M Antonia BiggsAdvancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine University of California San Francisco Oakland California USA.
Trine Munk-OlsenDepartment of Psychiatry University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark.
Julia R SteinbergDepartment of Family Science, School of Public Health University of Maryland College Park Maryland USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes of abortion. Does abortion increase the risk of adverse mental health outcomes? That is the central question for this review. Our review aims to inform policy and practice by locating, critically appraising, and synthesizing empirical evidence on associations between abortion and subsequent mental health outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding this topic and the complex social, political, legal, and ideological contexts in which research and reviews on abortion are conducted, it is especially important to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis with comprehensive, rigorous, unbiased, and transparent methods. We will include a variety of study designs to enhance understanding of studies' methodological strengths and weaknesses and to identify potential explanations for conflicting results. We will follow open science principles, providing access to our methods, measures, and results, and making data available for re-analysis.

Indexed as

abortionmental healthmeta‐analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38779333
PMCPMC11109527

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.