Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39384382›Full record

SynthesisBMJ sexual & reproductive health2025

Home use of mifepristone for medical abortion: a systematic review.

Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, Ingela Lindh, Jan Brynhildsen, Anna Christensson, Klas Moberg, Emma Wernersson, Susanne Johansson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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. 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

7 authors.

Kristina Gemzell-DanielssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden kristina.gemzell@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6516-1444
Ingela LindhDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0673-3841
Jan BrynhildsenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Anna ChristenssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Klas MobergSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2054-6193
Emma WernerssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Susanne JohanssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0073-6355

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries, persons seeking medical abortion with mifepristone followed by misoprostol can self-administer the second drug, misoprostol, at home, but self-administration of the first drug, mifepristone, is not allowed to the same extent.

objectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate whether the efficacy, safety and women's satisfaction with abortion treatment are affected when mifepristone is self-administered at home instead of in a clinic. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search covered CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and APA PsycInfo in October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies focused on persons undergoing medical abortion comparing home and in-clinic mifepristone intake. Outcomes included abortion effectiveness, compliance, acceptability, and practical consequences for women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analysis included similar studies while those differing in design were synthesised without meta-analysis.

resultsSix studies (54 233 women) of medical abortions up to 10 weeks were included. One randomised controlled trial and one retrospective register study had moderate risk of bias, and four non-randomised clinical trials where women could choose the place for intake of mifepristone had serious risk of bias. There was no difference in abortion effectiveness (high confidence) or compliance (moderate confidence) between mifepristone administered at home or in-clinic. No differences in complications were detected between groups and most women who chose home administration of mifepristone expressed a preference for this approach.

conclusionsOur systematic review demonstrates that the effectiveness of medical abortion is comparable regardless of mifepristone administration and intake, at home or in the clinic.

Indexed as

Abortifacient Agents, SteroidalAbortion, InducedMifepristoneSelf AdministrationFemaleHumansMisoprostolPatient SatisfactionPregnancyAbortifacient Agents, SteroidalMifepristoneMisoprostolAbortifacient AgentsabortionMifepristone

Identifiers

PMID39384382
PMCPMC12322458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.