SynthesisObstetrics and gynecology2025
Weight and Procedural Abortion Complications: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effect of Weight Status on Risk of Perioperative Complications Associated With Surgical Abortion: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically assess the existing empiric evidence regarding a potential relationship between higher body weight and procedural abortion complications. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our search identified 409 studies, which were uploaded to Covidence for review management; 133 duplicates were automatically removed. A team of two reviewers screened 276 studies, and a third reviewer resolved conflicts. Studies were included if they 1) consisted of peer-reviewed research published between 2010 and 2022, 2) were conducted in the United States, 3) included people with a higher body weight (body mass index [BMI] 30 or higher) in the study sample, and 4) assessed at least one outcome of procedural abortion safety stratified by a measure of body weight. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND
resultsWe extracted study data using Covidence and calculated an odds ratio for each study to facilitate the synthesis of results. Six studies assessing a total of 38,960 participants were included. No studies found a significant relationship between procedural abortion complications and higher body weight overall. Subgroup analysis from one study identified a significant increase in complications specifically among participants with BMIs higher than 40 who had second-trimester abortions. All studies used a retrospective cohort design and fulfilled Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria to be considered good quality. Studies varied in terms of clinical settings, patient populations, gestations assessed, clinician training levels, and care protocols.
conclusionOverall, higher body weight was not associated with an increased risk of procedural abortion complications in the included studies. The practice of referring patients undergoing procedural abortion with a higher body weight for hospital-based care is not based on recent safety evidence. On the contrary, this practice threatens the health of people with a higher body weight by potentially delaying their access to abortion care, extending their pregnancies into later gestations, and blocking their ability to access an abortion altogether.
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.