Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39381661›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2024

Management of early pregnancy loss by reproductive endocrinologists: does access to mifepristone matter?

Zachary S Anderson, Richard J Paulson, Brian T Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

3 authors.

Zachary S AndersonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Richard J PaulsonSection of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Brian T NguyenSection of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To describe patterns and variations in the medical and procedural management of early pregnancy loss (EPL) among reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists, with attention to mifepristone use. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Online survey. Patients: Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility members. Intervention: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure: Preferred management for EPL. Results: Of 101 completed surveys (response rate: 12.2%), 70.3% of respondents reported diagnosing EPL at least once per week. Half (50.5%) of respondents preferred medical management compared with 27.7% who preferred procedural management and 21.8% who preferred expectant management. Approximately one-quarter (26.7%) of respondents offer mifepristone for medical management of EPL. The most common reason cited for not prescribing mifepristone was a lack of access to the medication. Mifepristone prescribers were more likely to work in a hospital or university setting than private practice. Increasing years in practice was also associated with mifepristone use. The use of mifepristone for EPL did not vary by the respondent's age, gender, prior abortion training, or practice region. Conclusion: The most effective method of medical management uses both mifepristone and misoprostol. However, nearly three-quarters of reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians do not offer mifepristone, which may be linked to access issues.

Indexed as

Early pregnancy lossmifepristonemiscarriage

Identifiers

PMID39381661
PMCPMC11456648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.