Loading…

Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion

This randomized trial was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of, patient acceptance of, and provider resources needed for medical and surgical abortion in women with pregnancies up to 49 days’ gestation. Women with no pre-treatment preference for method of abortion were randomized to medical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Contraception (Stoneham) 2000-09, Vol.62 (3), p.117-124
Main Author: Creinin, Mitchell D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53
container_end_page 124
container_issue 3
container_start_page 117
container_title Contraception (Stoneham)
container_volume 62
creator Creinin, Mitchell D.
description This randomized trial was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of, patient acceptance of, and provider resources needed for medical and surgical abortion in women with pregnancies up to 49 days’ gestation. Women with no pre-treatment preference for method of abortion were randomized to medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol (group 1) or surgical abortion under local anesthesia using manual vacuum aspiration (group 2). Women in group 1 received methotrexate 50 mg orally followed 5 to 6 days later by misoprostol 800 μg vaginally; the misoprostol dose was repeated if the abortion did not occur. All subjects returned for a follow-up evaluation 7 and 14 days after the methotrexate or 14 days after the vacuum aspiration. The time spent by clinical staff for all interactions with participants was prospectively recorded. Enrollment of 50 subjects took 24 months; 25 women were randomized to each group. The complete abortion rates by study day 15 were 83% (95% CI 68, 98%) and 96% (95% CI 88, 100%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Of the women randomized to a surgical abortion, 92% (95% CI 81, 100%) stated they would choose a surgical for a next abortion, whereas only 63% (95% CI 43, 82%) of women randomized to a medical abortion would choose that option in the future. Overall, surgical abortion requires 0 to 10% more personnel cost than medical abortion using methotrexate and misoprostol. In women who did not have a strong preference between medical and surgical abortion, the side effect profile and patient acceptability was significantly better for surgical abortion compared to medical abortion.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00151-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72487453</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010782400001517</els_id><sourcerecordid>72487453</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0F1LHDEUgOFQKnWr_gTLQKG04GiSSSaZqyKLVmFBsPVSQpI5kZSZyTaZWVh_vdkPtpdehcBz8vEidE7wJcGkvvqNMcGlkJR9x_hH3nBSig9oRqRoSsyJ_IhmB3KMPqf0F2MsGi4-oWNCCGUVlzP0_KiHNvT-FdrChn6po09hKIIrwDlvtV1fFNpaWI7a-M6P6yL7LNO4MT202XTFCmKaUpGm-LLdaxPi6MNwio6c7hKc7dcT9HR782d-Vy4eft3PrxelrWQzljVUxpFaUFPpVljXMqDESN1Q0VS1ZWCsaYFS2ThKasd1JZrGubaumXO14dUJ-rY7dxnDvwnSqHqfLHSdHiBMSQnKpGC8ypDvoI0hpQhOLaPvdVwrgtWmq9p2VZtoCmO17apEnvuyv2Ay-dP_p_YhM_i6BzrlAi7qwfp0cJJxRjfv_LlTkGOsPESVrIfB5owR7Kja4N95yBtI3ZWQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72487453</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Creinin, Mitchell D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Creinin, Mitchell D.</creatorcontrib><description>This randomized trial was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of, patient acceptance of, and provider resources needed for medical and surgical abortion in women with pregnancies up to 49 days’ gestation. Women with no pre-treatment preference for method of abortion were randomized to medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol (group 1) or surgical abortion under local anesthesia using manual vacuum aspiration (group 2). Women in group 1 received methotrexate 50 mg orally followed 5 to 6 days later by misoprostol 800 μg vaginally; the misoprostol dose was repeated if the abortion did not occur. All subjects returned for a follow-up evaluation 7 and 14 days after the methotrexate or 14 days after the vacuum aspiration. The time spent by clinical staff for all interactions with participants was prospectively recorded. Enrollment of 50 subjects took 24 months; 25 women were randomized to each group. The complete abortion rates by study day 15 were 83% (95% CI 68, 98%) and 96% (95% CI 88, 100%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Of the women randomized to a surgical abortion, 92% (95% CI 81, 100%) stated they would choose a surgical for a next abortion, whereas only 63% (95% CI 43, 82%) of women randomized to a medical abortion would choose that option in the future. Overall, surgical abortion requires 0 to 10% more personnel cost than medical abortion using methotrexate and misoprostol. In women who did not have a strong preference between medical and surgical abortion, the side effect profile and patient acceptability was significantly better for surgical abortion compared to medical abortion.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-7824</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0518</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00151-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11124358</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CCPTAY</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abortifacient Agents ; Abortion, Therapeutic - economics ; Abortion, Therapeutic - methods ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Birth control ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Induced abortion. Therapeutic abortion ; Manual vacuum aspiration ; Medical abortion ; Medical sciences ; Methotrexate ; Misoprostol ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care ; Prospective Studies ; Surgical abortion ; Vacuum Curettage</subject><ispartof>Contraception (Stoneham), 2000-09, Vol.62 (3), p.117-124</ispartof><rights>2000 Elsevier Science Inc.</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=845425$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124358$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Creinin, Mitchell D.</creatorcontrib><title>Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion</title><title>Contraception (Stoneham)</title><addtitle>Contraception</addtitle><description>This randomized trial was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of, patient acceptance of, and provider resources needed for medical and surgical abortion in women with pregnancies up to 49 days’ gestation. Women with no pre-treatment preference for method of abortion were randomized to medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol (group 1) or surgical abortion under local anesthesia using manual vacuum aspiration (group 2). Women in group 1 received methotrexate 50 mg orally followed 5 to 6 days later by misoprostol 800 μg vaginally; the misoprostol dose was repeated if the abortion did not occur. All subjects returned for a follow-up evaluation 7 and 14 days after the methotrexate or 14 days after the vacuum aspiration. The time spent by clinical staff for all interactions with participants was prospectively recorded. Enrollment of 50 subjects took 24 months; 25 women were randomized to each group. The complete abortion rates by study day 15 were 83% (95% CI 68, 98%) and 96% (95% CI 88, 100%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Of the women randomized to a surgical abortion, 92% (95% CI 81, 100%) stated they would choose a surgical for a next abortion, whereas only 63% (95% CI 43, 82%) of women randomized to a medical abortion would choose that option in the future. Overall, surgical abortion requires 0 to 10% more personnel cost than medical abortion using methotrexate and misoprostol. In women who did not have a strong preference between medical and surgical abortion, the side effect profile and patient acceptability was significantly better for surgical abortion compared to medical abortion.</description><subject>Abortifacient Agents</subject><subject>Abortion, Therapeutic - economics</subject><subject>Abortion, Therapeutic - methods</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Birth control</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Induced abortion. Therapeutic abortion</subject><subject>Manual vacuum aspiration</subject><subject>Medical abortion</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methotrexate</subject><subject>Misoprostol</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgical abortion</subject><subject>Vacuum Curettage</subject><issn>0010-7824</issn><issn>1879-0518</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0F1LHDEUgOFQKnWr_gTLQKG04GiSSSaZqyKLVmFBsPVSQpI5kZSZyTaZWVh_vdkPtpdehcBz8vEidE7wJcGkvvqNMcGlkJR9x_hH3nBSig9oRqRoSsyJ_IhmB3KMPqf0F2MsGi4-oWNCCGUVlzP0_KiHNvT-FdrChn6po09hKIIrwDlvtV1fFNpaWI7a-M6P6yL7LNO4MT202XTFCmKaUpGm-LLdaxPi6MNwio6c7hKc7dcT9HR782d-Vy4eft3PrxelrWQzljVUxpFaUFPpVljXMqDESN1Q0VS1ZWCsaYFS2ThKasd1JZrGubaumXO14dUJ-rY7dxnDvwnSqHqfLHSdHiBMSQnKpGC8ypDvoI0hpQhOLaPvdVwrgtWmq9p2VZtoCmO17apEnvuyv2Ay-dP_p_YhM_i6BzrlAi7qwfp0cJJxRjfv_LlTkGOsPESVrIfB5owR7Kja4N95yBtI3ZWQ</recordid><startdate>20000901</startdate><enddate>20000901</enddate><creator>Creinin, Mitchell D.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000901</creationdate><title>Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion</title><author>Creinin, Mitchell D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Abortifacient Agents</topic><topic>Abortion, Therapeutic - economics</topic><topic>Abortion, Therapeutic - methods</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Birth control</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Induced abortion. Therapeutic abortion</topic><topic>Manual vacuum aspiration</topic><topic>Medical abortion</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methotrexate</topic><topic>Misoprostol</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgical abortion</topic><topic>Vacuum Curettage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Creinin, Mitchell D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Contraception (Stoneham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Creinin, Mitchell D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion</atitle><jtitle>Contraception (Stoneham)</jtitle><addtitle>Contraception</addtitle><date>2000-09-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>117</spage><epage>124</epage><pages>117-124</pages><issn>0010-7824</issn><eissn>1879-0518</eissn><coden>CCPTAY</coden><abstract>This randomized trial was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of, patient acceptance of, and provider resources needed for medical and surgical abortion in women with pregnancies up to 49 days’ gestation. Women with no pre-treatment preference for method of abortion were randomized to medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol (group 1) or surgical abortion under local anesthesia using manual vacuum aspiration (group 2). Women in group 1 received methotrexate 50 mg orally followed 5 to 6 days later by misoprostol 800 μg vaginally; the misoprostol dose was repeated if the abortion did not occur. All subjects returned for a follow-up evaluation 7 and 14 days after the methotrexate or 14 days after the vacuum aspiration. The time spent by clinical staff for all interactions with participants was prospectively recorded. Enrollment of 50 subjects took 24 months; 25 women were randomized to each group. The complete abortion rates by study day 15 were 83% (95% CI 68, 98%) and 96% (95% CI 88, 100%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Of the women randomized to a surgical abortion, 92% (95% CI 81, 100%) stated they would choose a surgical for a next abortion, whereas only 63% (95% CI 43, 82%) of women randomized to a medical abortion would choose that option in the future. Overall, surgical abortion requires 0 to 10% more personnel cost than medical abortion using methotrexate and misoprostol. In women who did not have a strong preference between medical and surgical abortion, the side effect profile and patient acceptability was significantly better for surgical abortion compared to medical abortion.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>11124358</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00151-7</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-7824
ispartof Contraception (Stoneham), 2000-09, Vol.62 (3), p.117-124
issn 0010-7824
1879-0518
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72487453
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Abortifacient Agents
Abortion, Therapeutic - economics
Abortion, Therapeutic - methods
Adolescent
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Birth control
Female
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Induced abortion. Therapeutic abortion
Manual vacuum aspiration
Medical abortion
Medical sciences
Methotrexate
Misoprostol
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Prospective Studies
Surgical abortion
Vacuum Curettage
title Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T08%3A38%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized%20comparison%20of%20efficacy,%20acceptability%20and%20cost%20of%20medical%20versus%20surgical%20abortion&rft.jtitle=Contraception%20(Stoneham)&rft.au=Creinin,%20Mitchell%20D.&rft.date=2000-09-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=117&rft.epage=124&rft.pages=117-124&rft.issn=0010-7824&rft.eissn=1879-0518&rft.coden=CCPTAY&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00151-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72487453%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-6e3bf1672b3ad7cfd4e21b8a927936c4ebcbde2289f216f5a3799ffd664ff6b53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72487453&rft_id=info:pmid/11124358&rfr_iscdi=true