FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2039071457> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2039071457 endingPage "135" @default.
• W2039071457 startingPage "119" @default.
• W2039071457 abstract "Comparisons of the efficacy of different regimens of medical abortion are difficult because of the widely varying protocols (even for testing identical regimens), divergent definitions of success and failure, and lack of a standard method of analysis. In this article we review the current efficacy literature on medical abortion, highlighting some of the most important differences in the way that efficacy has been analyzed. We then propose a standard conceptual approach and the accompanying statistical methods for analyzing clinical trials of medical abortion and to explain how clinical investigators can implement this approach. Our review reveals that research on the efficacy of medical abortion has closely followed the conceptual model used for analysis of surgical abortion. The problem, however, is that, whereas surgical abortion is a discrete event occurring in the space of a few minutes or less, medical abortion is a process typically lasting from several days to several weeks. In this process, two events may occur that are not possible with surgical abortion. First, the woman can opt out of the process before a fair determination of efficacy can be made. Second, the process of medical abortion allows time for surgical interventions that may be convenient for the clinician but not strictly necessary from a medical perspective. Another difference from surgical abortions is that, for medical abortions, different medical abortion protocols specify different waiting periods, giving the drugs less time to work in some studies than in others before a determination of efficacy is made. We argue that, when analyzing efficacy of medical abortion, researchers should abandon their close reliance on the analogy to surgical abortion. In fact, medical abortion is more appropriately analyzed by life table procedures developed for the study of another fertility regulation technology; contraception. As with medical abortion, a woman initiating use of a contraceptive method can change her mind after some period of exposure and opt out. Also, as with medical abortion, a contraceptive can fail, usually with the risk of failure depending heavily on whether or not the woman follows the protocol for that method precisely. Finally, as with medical abortion, medical conditions may arise that necessitate discontinuing use of the contraceptive method. In both cases, these medical conditions are sometimes open to interpretation or subject to the skill, judgment, or experience of the clinician involved. The appropriate information to collect for a multiple decrement life table analysis of medical abortion includes data on compliance with the protocol, timing of the event of interest (abortion) when it is observable, and, because we argue that these should be regarded as events of interest, a typology of any surgical interventions that are conducted during the woman's participation in the study.This article reviews the existing efficacy literature on medical abortion with emphasis on the differences in the analysis of efficacy. The paper also proposes a standard conceptual approach and a statistical method for the analysis of clinical-trial abortion and the implementation of this approach. Review of literature reveals that medical abortion is closely associated with conceptual model used for the analysis of surgical abortion. Surgical abortion is a discrete event that lasts for a few minutes, while medical abortion is a process that takes place within several days to several weeks. There are two events that occur during medical abortion: 1) discontinuation of the process before a fair determination of efficacy can be made; 2) the process of medical abortion provides time for surgical interventions that are convenient for the physician. Medical abortions require different waiting periods giving drugs less time to work before determination of efficacy can be made. It is suggested that the efficacy of medical abortion be more appropriately analyzed by life table procedures developed for the study of another fertility regulation technology--contraception. As with medical abortion, a contraceptive can fail, usually with the risk of failure depending heavily on whether or not the woman follows the protocol for that method. The proper information to collect for a multiple decrement life table analysis of medical abortion includes data on compliance with the protocol, timing of the event of interest, and a typology of any surgical interventions that are conducted during the study." @default.
• W2039071457 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2039071457 creator A5042509274 @default.
• W2039071457 creator A5091805001 @default.
• W2039071457 date "1999-09-01" @default.
• W2039071457 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2039071457 title "Estimating the efficacy of medical abortion" @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1573027078 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1796269478 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W179792022 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1954410364 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1968517014 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1971930798 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1974401340 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1985213624 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1986673192 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1987714442 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W1993521497 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2000079161 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2003500277 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2003723255 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W200398452 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2005927373 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2009004041 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2009667442 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2010029680 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2017251100 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2020934752 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2021182664 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2030316184 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2033836328 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2038505464 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2049799620 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2054575398 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2059739954 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2066346496 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2079743559 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2079780973 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2080047003 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2083278993 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2088710768 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2090251918 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2093136029 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2094727779 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2097325206 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2104975583 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2133425397 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2136290793 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2140661281 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2153405372 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2155902690 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2162260833 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2168313266 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2168822385 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2192544661 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2286552762 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2317224967 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2321688437 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2322684555 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2324975514 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2339185636 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2412566274 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2478316459 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W2590556061 @default.
• W2039071457 cites W34987086 @default.
• W2039071457 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00078-5" @default.
• W2039071457 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10640155" @default.
• W2039071457 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2039071457 type Work @default.
• W2039071457 sameAs 2039071457 @default.
• W2039071457 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572012 @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572013 @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572014 @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572018 @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572019 @default.
• W2039071457 countsByYear W20390714572020 @default.
• W2039071457 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2039071457 hasAuthorship W2039071457A5042509274 @default.
• W2039071457 hasAuthorship W2039071457A5091805001 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2778642596 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2779076696 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2779199973 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2779560327 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2781360127 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C2986817661 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2039071457 hasConcept C54355233 @default.

• next