Use of Medicines Changing the Face of Abortion
Open accessAbstract
Medication abortion (also commonly referred to as medical abortion) is arguably the most important advance in reproductive health technology since the discovery of oral contraceptives. This simple process, involving the use of pins rather than invasive surgical instruments, has been shown to be safe and up to 98% effective for early pregnancy termination. (1-3) In settings where abortion is legal, medication abortion has expanded the array of effective options available, thus improving the abortion experience for those who wish to avoid surgery. In settings where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, it has provided many women for the first time with a safe and discreet means for early termination of unwanted pregnancy. Further, in all settings where it is available, medication abortion has reduced women's dependence on medical systems, providing them with greater autonomy and control over their most important reproductive decisions. Administration of mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin, is the gold standard for medication abortion. Mifepristone was initially approved in the late 1980s in China and France and has since been safely and effectively used by many millions of women worldwide. (4-7) Mifepristone diminishes the biological availability of progesterone, the hormone needed to sustain pregnancy. It is typically used in combination with misoprostol, which helps empty the uterus by inducing uterine contractions. (1) However, mifepristone is not available in many settings because of legal restrictions on the provision of abortion services. It is also unavailable in numerous settings where the population of reproductive-age women is small, since the high cost of drug registration makes entering the market unappealing to commercial entities. As a result, mifepristone is registered for pregnancy termination in only about 50 of the world's countries, the majority of which are in the developed regions of Europe. (8) Of the 20 developing countries where mifepristone is registered, two-thirds are in Asia. At present, mifepristone is registered in just five African countries (Mozambique, Zambia, Tunisia, South Africa and Ghana) and two Latin American countries (Mexico and Guyana). In many settings where mifepristone is unavailable, misoprostol is commonly used alone for early pregnancy termination. Misoprostol was originally developed in the mid-1980s for gastrointestinal indications and is licensed for such purposes in about 90 countries worldwide. (9), (10) The drug is inexpensive and stable at room temperature, making it ideal for inducing abortion in low-resource settings. The first reported widespread use of misoprostol for pregnancy termination was in Brazil in the late 1980s. (11),(12) Since then, knowledge and use of misoprostol by itself as a means of early pregnancy termination have grown throughout Latin America, as well as in other regions where abortion is legally restricted and mifepristone is unavailable. (13), (14) Although use of misoprostol alone is less effective than its use with mifepristone, misoprostol-only abortions are nevertheless a safe, acceptable and effective means of early pregnancy termination. (6), (15), (16) In still other settings, women lack access to both misoprostol and mifepristone. These include much of northern and western Africa; some parts of middle, eastern and southern Africa; and a number of countries in Asia and South America. (10) Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the world's most restrictive abortion laws and highest rates of abortion-related mortality are found in these same places. (17), (18) The acceptability of medication abortion among women seeking an abortion is high in developing countries, regardless of the setting or regimen used. (5), (6), (19) Furthermore, demand for the procedure appears to be increasing rapidly in many places. It is difficult to document specific trends in the use of medication abortion, because mifepristone is frequently unavailable and use of misoprostol is largely off-label or clandestine. …
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Abortion has become medically more feasible and safer with increased availability and use of misoprostol and mifepristone.
“Abortion has become medically more feasible and safer with the increased availability and use of misoprostol and mifepristone.14”
From Advocating safe abortion: outcomes of a multi‐country needs assessment on the potential role of national societies of obstetrics and gynecology (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 71
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [2]2. Trussell J and Ellertson C, Estimating the efficacy of medical abortion, Contraception, 1999, 60(3):119-135.
- [3]3. Fjerstad M et al., Rates of serious infection after changes in regimens for medical abortion, New England Journal of Medicine, 2009, 361(2):145-151.
- [4]4. Shannon C et al., Infection after medical abortion: a review of the literature, Contraception, 2004, 70(3):183-190.
- [5]5. Winikoff B et al., Safety, efficacy, and acceptability of medical abortion in China, Cuba, and India: a comparative trial of mifepristonemisoprostol versus surgical abortion, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1997, 176(2):431-437.
- [6]6. Ngoc NTN et al., Comparing two early medical abortion regimens: mifepristone+misoprostol vs. misoprostol alone, Contraception, 2011, 83(5):410-417.
- [7]7. Henderson JT et al., Safety of mifepristone abortions in clinical use, Contraception, 2005, 72(3):175-178.
- [9]9. Rowlands S, Abortion pills: under whose control? Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 38(2):117-122.
- [11]11. Barbosa RM and Arilha M, The Brazilian experience with Cytotec, Studies in Family Planning, 1993, 24(4):236-240.
- [12]12. Costa SH and Vessey MP, Misoprostol and illegal abortion in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Lancet, 1993, 341(8855):1258-1261.
- [14]14. Sayette H et al., Buccal use of misoprostol alone for early abortion: the experience in four Latin American countries, Contraception, 2011, 84(3):304.
- [15]15. Borgatta L et al., Misoprostol as the primary agent for medical abortion in a low-income urban setting, Contraception, 2004, 70(2):121-126.
- [16]16. von Hertzen H et al., Efficacy of two intervals and two routes of administration of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised controlled equivalence trial, Lancet, 2007, 369(9577): 1938-1946.
- [19]19. Swica Y et al., Review of the literature on patient satisfaction with early medical abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol, Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 6(4):451-468.
- [20]20. Fernandez MM et al., Assessing the global availability of misoprostol, International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics, 2009, 105(2): 180-186.
- [22]22. Gomperts R et al., Regional differences in surgical intervention following medical termination of pregnancy provided by telemedicine, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2012, 91(2): 226-231.
- [23]23. Gomperts RJ et al., Using telemedicine for termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol in settings where there is no access to safe services, BJOG, 2008, 115(9):1171-1178.
- [25]25. Warriner IK et al., Can midlevel health-care providers administer early medical abortion as safely and effectively as doctors? A randomised controlled equivalence trial in Nepal, Lancet, 2011, 377(9772):1155-1161.
- [26]26. Hajri S et al., Ten years of medical abortion services and innovations in Tunisia, European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 2008, 13(Suppl. 2):25-26.
- [27]27. Hajri S, Medical abortion: the Tunisian experience, African Journal of Reproductive Health, 2004, 8(1):63-69.
- [28]28. Yarnall J, Swica Y and Winikoff B, Non-physician clinicians can safely provide first trimester medical abortion, Reproductive Health Matters, 2009, 17(33):61-69.
- Authors
- Winikoff, B., & Sheldon, W.
- Affiliations
- Gynuity Health Projects (US)
- Venue
- International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Publisher
- Guttmacher Institute
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 164-166
- ISSN
- 1944-0391 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996097676
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
- Keywords
- abortion pills, mifepristone, misoprostol, abortion access, abortion restrictions, drug registration, resource-limited settings, reproductive autonomy, Latin America, Asia, unwanted pregnancy termination
- MeSH terms
- Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal, Abortion, Legal, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Pregnancy, Prostaglandins, Global Health, Mifepristone
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