ReviewInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Induced abortion in the world: 2. Present views on pregnancy termination.
Review in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Induced abortion in the world: 3. In search of a minimum common ground.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Induced abortion in the world: 2. Present views on pregnancy termination.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abortion was practiced in most cultures for millennia, but was often disapproved and banned. The 20th century witnessed a progressive conditional legalization, often with limitations for the duration of pregnancy. Legalizing abortion was driven by multiple factors, including a desire to limit population growth, the emergence of movements that promoted reproductive freedom, women's empowerment and control over their own bodies, and an increased awareness of the risks inherent in abortions carried out without proper medical care. Today, there is a definite trend towards safer and more efficient abortion methods. Access to abortion care is not universal: in 2022, 970 million women of reproductive age had access to abortion, whereas some 700 million lived under restrictive laws. In many parts of the world abortion rates have increased, while the ethical conflict around abortion remains and views on both sides have polarized and become more entrenched. Whether restrictive legislation reduces the number of women undergoing abortion and whether a realization that addressing the unplanned and unwanted pregnancies can reduce the number of women seeking abortion remains debatable. In conclusion, the 20th century witnessed the contradiction of a surge in both pro- and anti-abortion sentiments.
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.