CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law

Cervical dilation before first-trimester surgical abortion (< 14 weeks' gestation)

Allen, Rebecca H., Goldberg, Alisa B.·2016·Contraception
DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

First-trimester surgical abortion is a common, safe procedure with a major complication rate of less than 1%. Cervical dilation before suction abortion is usually accomplished using tapered mechanical dilators. Risk factors for major complications in the first trimester include increasing gestational age and provider inexperience. Cervical priming before first-trimester surgical abortion has been studied using osmotic dilators and pharmacologic agents, most commonly misoprostol. Extensive data demonstrate that a variety of agents are safe and effective at causing preoperative cervical softening and dilation; however, given the small absolute risk of complications, the benefit of routine use of misoprostol or osmotic dilators in first-trimester surgical abortion is unclear. Although cervical priming results in reduced abortion time and improved provider ease, it requires a delay of at least 1 to 3 h and may confer side effects. The Society of Family Planning does not recommend routine cervical priming for first-trimester suction abortion but recommends limiting consideration of cervical priming for women at increased risk of complications from cervical dilation, including those late in the first trimester, adolescents and women in whom cervical dilation is expected to be challenging.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.001

Cites

184 of 184 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The proportion of STSA respondents who offered abortion for patient request was much higher than the 17.9% of second-trimester medical abortion respondents who offered a medical abortion for patient request.

    “The proportion of our STSA respondents who offered abortion for patient request was much higher than the 17.9% of our second-trimester medical abortion respondents who offered a medical abortion for patient request.17”

    From First and Second-Trimester Surgical Abortion Providers and Services in 2019: Results From the Canadian Abortion Provider Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Most of the 112 survey respondents who indicated they provided second-trimester medical abortion reported that FTSA was also provided in their facility (87.3%), while STSA was provided less frequently (61.3%).

    “Most of our 112 survey respondents who indicated they provided second-trimester medical abortion reported that FTSA was also provided in their facility (87.3%), while STSA was provided less frequently (61.3%).”

    From First and Second-Trimester Surgical Abortion Providers and Services in 2019: Results From the Canadian Abortion Provider Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Allen, R. H., & Goldberg, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Planned Parenthood (US)
Corresponding author
  • Allen, Rebecca H.
  • Goldberg, Alisa B.
ORCID
Venue
Contraception
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
277-291
ISSN
0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.001
OpenAlex
W2191653719
Cited by
50
References
184
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Contraception (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Keywords
cervical dilatation, cervical priming, misoprostol, osmotic dilators, abortion complications, gestational age, provider experiences, abortion time
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Dilatation, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Laminaria, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Professional Practice Location, Misoprostol

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