Home use of mifepristone for medical abortion: a systematic review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202302
Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, Ingela Lindh, Jan Brynhildsen, Anna Christensson, Klas Moberg, Emma Wernersson, Susanne Johansson
{"title":"Home use of mifepristone for medical abortion: a systematic review.","authors":"Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, Ingela Lindh, Jan Brynhildsen, Anna Christensson, Klas Moberg, Emma Wernersson, Susanne Johansson","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In many countries, persons seeking medical abortion with mifepristone followed by misoprostol can self-administer the second drug, misoprostol, at home, but self-administration of the first drug, mifepristone, is not allowed to the same extent.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review aims to evaluate whether the efficacy, safety and women's satisfaction with abortion treatment are affected when mifepristone is self-administered at home instead of in a clinic.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>A literature search covered CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and APA PsycInfo in October 2022.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Eligible studies focused on persons undergoing medical abortion comparing home and in-clinic mifepristone intake. Outcomes included abortion effectiveness, compliance, acceptability, and practical consequences for women.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analysis included similar studies while those differing in design were synthesised without meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies (54 233 women) of medical abortions up to 10 weeks were included. One randomised controlled trial and one retrospective register study had moderate risk of bias, and four non-randomised clinical trials where women could choose the place for intake of mifepristone had serious risk of bias. There was no difference in abortion effectiveness (high confidence) or compliance (moderate confidence) between mifepristone administered at home or in-clinic. No differences in complications were detected between groups and most women who chose home administration of mifepristone expressed a preference for this approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic review demonstrates that the effectiveness of medical abortion is comparable regardless of mifepristone administration and intake, at home or in the clinic.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In many countries, persons seeking medical abortion with mifepristone followed by misoprostol can self-administer the second drug, misoprostol, at home, but self-administration of the first drug, mifepristone, is not allowed to the same extent.

Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate whether the efficacy, safety and women's satisfaction with abortion treatment are affected when mifepristone is self-administered at home instead of in a clinic.

Search strategy: A literature search covered CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and APA PsycInfo in October 2022.

Selection criteria: Eligible studies focused on persons undergoing medical abortion comparing home and in-clinic mifepristone intake. Outcomes included abortion effectiveness, compliance, acceptability, and practical consequences for women.

Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analysis included similar studies while those differing in design were synthesised without meta-analysis.

Results: Six studies (54 233 women) of medical abortions up to 10 weeks were included. One randomised controlled trial and one retrospective register study had moderate risk of bias, and four non-randomised clinical trials where women could choose the place for intake of mifepristone had serious risk of bias. There was no difference in abortion effectiveness (high confidence) or compliance (moderate confidence) between mifepristone administered at home or in-clinic. No differences in complications were detected between groups and most women who chose home administration of mifepristone expressed a preference for this approach.

Conclusions: Our systematic review demonstrates that the effectiveness of medical abortion is comparable regardless of mifepristone administration and intake, at home or in the clinic.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在家中使用米非司酮进行药物流产:系统综述。
背景:在许多国家,使用米非司酮和米索前列醇进行药物流产的患者可以在家中自行服用第二种药物米索前列醇,但第一种药物米非司酮的自行服用却不被允许:本系统综述旨在评估在家中而非诊所自行使用米非司酮是否会影响流产治疗的有效性、安全性和妇女的满意度:检索策略:2022 年 10 月的文献检索涵盖了 CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Embase、Ovid MEDLINE 和 APA PsycInfo:符合条件的研究主要针对接受药物流产的患者,比较在家和在诊所接受米非司酮的情况。结果包括流产效果、依从性、可接受性以及对妇女的实际影响:两名审稿人独立评估了资格和偏倚风险。荟萃分析包括相似的研究,而设计不同的研究则不进行荟萃分析:结果:纳入了六项关于 10 周以内药物流产的研究(54 233 名妇女)。其中一项随机对照试验和一项回顾性登记研究存在中度偏倚风险,四项非随机临床试验存在严重偏倚风险,在这些试验中,妇女可以选择服用米非司酮的地点。在家或在诊所使用米非司酮在流产效果(高置信度)或依从性(中度置信度)方面没有差异。各组之间在并发症方面没有发现差异,大多数选择在家使用米非司酮的妇女表示更倾向于这种方法:我们的系统综述表明,无论米非司酮是在家中还是在诊所使用和摄入,药物流产的有效性都是相当的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
期刊最新文献
Shifting discourses, changing interests? How the language of sexual and reproductive health has evolved in the past 50 years. "That's not how abortions happen": a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era. Attitudes towards the regulation and provision of abortion among healthcare professionals in Britain: cross-sectional survey data from the SACHA Study. Reported side effects from hormonal contraceptives among those seeking abortion care versus contraceptive services. The post-Roe potential of mifepristone and misoprostol in the United States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1