Karin Brandell, John J Reynolds-Wright, Clare Boerma, Gillian Gibson, Helena Hognert, Heera Tuladhar, Oskari Heikinheimo, Sharon Cameron, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson
{"title":"确认宫内妊娠前药物流产:系统综述。","authors":"Karin Brandell, John J Reynolds-Wright, Clare Boerma, Gillian Gibson, Helena Hognert, Heera Tuladhar, Oskari Heikinheimo, Sharon Cameron, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1760117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Very early medical abortion\" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is to present the current evidence on efficacy, safety (focused on ectopic pregnancies), and how to assess treatment success of VEMA. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of VEMA. The field is small and so our objective was to map all relevant literature, without conducting meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase on April 19, 2022. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. A total of 373 articles were identified. Six articles (representing four observational and one pilot trial) were included in the final review. Across all included studies, treatment efficacy ranged between 91 and 100%. Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was low and very few cases (<i>n</i> = 2) of ruptures were reported. Most studies used serial serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (s-hCG) levels to determine success of abortion; one study used low sensitivity urine hCG. From the available evidence, VEMA appears to be efficacious and does not appear to cause harm to ectopic pregnancies. Treatment can be assessed with pre- and postabortion s-hCG. Good quality, randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to best inform practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical Abortion before Confirmed Intrauterine Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Karin Brandell, John J Reynolds-Wright, Clare Boerma, Gillian Gibson, Helena Hognert, Heera Tuladhar, Oskari Heikinheimo, Sharon Cameron, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0042-1760117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>\\\"Very early medical abortion\\\" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is to present the current evidence on efficacy, safety (focused on ectopic pregnancies), and how to assess treatment success of VEMA. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of VEMA. The field is small and so our objective was to map all relevant literature, without conducting meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase on April 19, 2022. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. A total of 373 articles were identified. Six articles (representing four observational and one pilot trial) were included in the final review. Across all included studies, treatment efficacy ranged between 91 and 100%. Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was low and very few cases (<i>n</i> = 2) of ruptures were reported. Most studies used serial serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (s-hCG) levels to determine success of abortion; one study used low sensitivity urine hCG. From the available evidence, VEMA appears to be efficacious and does not appear to cause harm to ectopic pregnancies. Treatment can be assessed with pre- and postabortion s-hCG. Good quality, randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to best inform practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760117\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Medical Abortion before Confirmed Intrauterine Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.
"Very early medical abortion" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is to present the current evidence on efficacy, safety (focused on ectopic pregnancies), and how to assess treatment success of VEMA. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of VEMA. The field is small and so our objective was to map all relevant literature, without conducting meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase on April 19, 2022. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. A total of 373 articles were identified. Six articles (representing four observational and one pilot trial) were included in the final review. Across all included studies, treatment efficacy ranged between 91 and 100%. Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was low and very few cases (n = 2) of ruptures were reported. Most studies used serial serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (s-hCG) levels to determine success of abortion; one study used low sensitivity urine hCG. From the available evidence, VEMA appears to be efficacious and does not appear to cause harm to ectopic pregnancies. Treatment can be assessed with pre- and postabortion s-hCG. Good quality, randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to best inform practice.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
