COMPARISON OF MIFEPRISTONE PLUS MISOPROSTOL WITH MISOPROSTOL ALONE FOR FIRST TRIMESTER MEDICAL ABORTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: META-ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

1Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Original clinical trials have demonstrated that the combined mifepristone plus misoprostol has a marked effectiveness on first trimester abortion practices compared to the misoprostol alone regimen. However, there is no clear evidence if this effect holds consistent direction for all main outcomes and, whether subsequent side effects are minimal or not. This review is intended to provide aggregated evidence for this question through comparison of the respective regimens based on findings reported by previous randomized control trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to compare mifepristone plus misoprostol combined regimen with misoprostol alone in medical abortion of first trimester pregnancy. METHODS: An internet based search of different engines will be undertaken to identify articles on the proposed topic. Using text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, a full search of PubMed/ Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, WHO international clinical Trial registry platform and google scholar will be made. All English-based articles published earlier to December 2021 on human subjects will be included. Studies which fulfil the inclusion criteria will be selected, appraised and assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Data on participants, study methods, interventions, and outcomes will be abstracted. Included studies will be pooled for meta-analysis. Results will be reported in either of a risk or ratio at 95% confidence intervals.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shimels, T., Abraha, M., Shafie, M., Belay, L., & Getnet, M. (2022). COMPARISON OF MIFEPRISTONE PLUS MISOPROSTOL WITH MISOPROSTOL ALONE FOR FIRST TRIMESTER MEDICAL ABORTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: META-ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. Ethiopian Journal of Reproductive Health, 14(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.69614/ejrh.v14i2.396

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free