Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39551368›Full record

ReviewContraception2025

Measuring abortion in claims data: What is the state of the science?

Alice Abernathy, Maria I Rodriguez, Jonas J Swartz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Contraception, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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.

Alice AbernathyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: Alice.Abernathy@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Maria I RodriguezCenter for Reproductive Health Equity, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, OR, United States.
Jonas J SwartzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.

Funding

WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENTK12HD001265 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Elizabeth A Howell · 1998 to 2026
$7.5M
Duke Women's Reproductive Health Research ScholarsK12HD103083 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Cindy Amundsen · 2020 to 2026
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001265NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD103083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health care insurance claims are an increasingly common data source for health outcomes research. While researchers have successfully used several claims data sources for many obstetric and gynecologic questions, the use of claims data for abortion and contraception research poses a number of challenges. In this update on the state of the science in identifying abortion in claims data, we review claims data generally, describe commonly used claims data sources, and detail specific reasons why abortion may be underestimated in claims even when employing best practices. We provide examples of successful approaches for identifying abortion in claims and importantly, spell out limitations when making comparisons across site of care, states, and policy contexts. As increased attention is turned to identifying abortion across diverse settings, it is critical best practices are applied so that the most appropriate inferences regarding abortion incidence across contexts over time are drawn.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedInsurance Claim ReviewFemaleHumansPregnancyUnited StatesAbortionAbortion incidenceAbortion policyClaimsDobbsSexual and reproductive health care

Identifiers

PMID39551368
PMCPMC11725440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.