Cited by 5Reproductive Health and ContraceptionInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawGlobal Maternal and Child Health

Clinical diagnosis of completeness of medical abortion by nurses: a reliability study in Mozambique

Gebreselassie, Hailemichael, Ustá, Momade, Andersen, Kathryn L., Mitchell, Ellen M.H.·2012·Contraception

Abstract

Background The provision of medical abortion continues to rely on routine use of ultrasound to confirm expulsion of pregnancy. However, the absence of ultrasound in most of the health facilities in developing countries and the additional training required to enable providers to use ultrasound is often prohibitive. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical history and physical examination with ultrasound in confirming completion of abortion. Study design A total of 718 women consented for medical abortion with misoprostol and were assessed for pregnancy expulsion by nurses and gynecologists. Nurses used history and physical examination while gynecologists used ultrasound to establish their diagnoses. Results Nurses' clinical diagnoses for complete abortion, incomplete abortion and ongoing pregnancy were 83% (SE 0.01), 15% (SE 0.01) and 2% (SE 0.01), respectively. When gynecologists used ultrasound, the diagnoses for complete abortion, incomplete abortion, an ongoing pregnancy were 80% (SE 0.01), 17% (SE 0.01) and 3% (SE 0.01), respectively. Overall, nurses agreed with gynecologist diagnoses in 84% of cases, with a κ coefficient of 0.49 (SE 0.06) and chance-corrected first-order agreement (AC(1)) of 0.81 (SE 0.02). Agreement was very high for the diagnosis of complete abortion (AC(1) 0.89; SE 0.02), while it was moderate for ongoing pregnancy (AC(1) 0.58; SE 0.22) and incomplete abortion (AC(1) 0.45; SE 0.08). Conclusions Clinical history and physical examination alone,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.08.012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebreselassie, H., Ustá, M., Andersen, K. L., & Mitchell, E. M. H.
Affiliations
  • Eduardo Mondlane University (MZ)
  • Ipas (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Andersen, Kathryn L.
Venue
Contraception
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
74-78
ISSN
0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057506198
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Contraception (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
abortion pills, misoprostol, nurses, diagnosis, physical examination, history and physical examination, ultrasound, ongoing pregnancy, incomplete abortion, diagnostic agreement, Mozambique
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Mozambique, Nurses, Physicians, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Misoprostol, Treatment Outcome, Treatment Failure, Young Adult, Gynecological Examination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review