ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Advancing knowledge and public health: a scientific exploration of abortion safety.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transvaginal ultrasonographic characteristics of different types of residual pregnancy tissue in patients with incomplete medication abortion.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- US Abortion Bans and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Attitudes toward abortion and associated factors among adults and young couples: a population-based study in Kurdistan Province, Iran.BMC public health · 2026Article
- On the history of abortion from antiquity to the present day, with a focus on Central Europe and Germany.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abortion is a fundamental component of reproductive healthcare, essential for managing unintended pregnancies and preserving the health and autonomy of individuals. Despite its medical necessity and established safety, abortion remains a topic of global controversy, shaped by sociopolitical, ethical, and legal factors rather than evidence-based practice. This editorial consolidates current scientific insights into abortion safety, mainly exploring its medical, but also legal, ethical, social, and public health dimensions. Globally, nearly 73 million abortions occur annually, highlighting the procedure's significance in healthcare systems. Abortion safety is highly dependent on the medical and systemic context. Medical abortion, involving mifepristone and misoprostol, boasts a success rate exceeding 95% for early gestation, with serious complications in less than 1% of cases. Surgical abortion, particularly vacuum aspiration, offers comparable safety with a major complication rate below 0.2%. When provided by trained professionals in supportive healthcare environments, abortion procedures are among the safest medical interventions. However, disparities persist globally. High-income countries with liberal abortion laws and robust healthcare infrastructures report near-universal access to safe abortions, with mortality rates approaching zero. In contrast, restrictive laws in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) force individuals to seek unsafe procedures, contributing significantly to maternal morbidity and mortality. Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of global maternal deaths, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations. Addressing these inequities requires comprehensive strategies, including legal reform, improved access to contraception, enhanced provider training, and destigmatization efforts. Integrating abortion care into broader reproductive health services can ensure safety and equity, advancing public health outcomes worldwide.
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.