ArticleTrials2025
Mate Whenua-follow-up after early medical abortion: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly medical abortion (EMA) is safe and effective; an uncommon but crucial adverse outcome is ongoing live pregnancy. The best method of follow-up after EMA to detect ongoing pregnancy is a critical research gap. Few trials compare blood or urine pregnancy tests to ultrasound scans, and no trial compares these tests to each other. The aim is to evaluate the completeness of follow-up of two methods of follow-up after EMA- self-assessment with low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test result or serial serum βhCG blood tests. Secondary aims will evaluate whether self-assessment follow-up is safe and acceptable to patients and clinicians.
methodsThis is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in New Zealand. Eligible women and pregnant people having EMA will be randomised to self-assessment or blood test follow-up. The primary outcome is 'lost to follow-up.' To detect a decrease in 'lost to follow-up' rate from baseline of 15% to 7.5%, with 90% power and a two-sided type 1 error of 0.05, the sample size required is 736 participants, in a 1:1 ratio. DISCUSSION: If self-assessment reduces lost to follow-up, has additional clinical benefits, and is safe, cost-effective, and acceptable to women and clinicians, we anticipate change in EMA follow-up practice around the world. We think self-assessment will be welcomed as part of a patient-centred package of care following EMA.
trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 21 August 2023, registration number ACTRN12623000890639; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384373.
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.