title: [Study on Meta analysis regarding the acceptability of medical abortion compared with surgical abortion].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To analyze and evaluate the acceptability of mifepristone compatible with misoprostone versus conventional surgical abortion among women under unwanted early pregnancy, so as to help the unexpected pregnant women to choose the satisfactory abortion, and to provide the evidence for clinicians to make a proper clinical decision.
  
  
  METHODS
  Six medical databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CBMdisc, CNKI and VIP, together with twelve journals hand-searched, and references of included studies additionally searched. Two qualified reviewers reviewed the original articles, evaluating qualities of articles, and extracting data independently. After heterogeneity test, the data was pooled using Revman software if capable, or descriptive analysis was applied.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In total, nine original clinical controlled trials were included, containing 3565 cases. Before abortion, more unwanted pregnant women chose the medical abortion because they believed medical abortion was less painful than surgical abortion (OR = 466.51, 95% CI: 91.37 - 2381.88), but medical abortion was less time-consuming than surgical abortion (OR = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.01 - 0.06). After abortion, satisfaction with medical abortion was similar to that with surgical abortion, with insignificant difference (P = 0.89). However, second choice and recommendation rates of medical abortion were much higher than those of surgical abortion with OR and 95% CI as 2.72, 2.13 - 3.47 and 4.19, 2.16 - 11.16, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Medical abortion was less painful than surgical abortion and the rate of second choice and recommendation to others were all also higher than those of surgical abortion. However, the process of medical abortion was not as quick as surgical abortion but the satifacation of both methods seemed similar. Therefore, the two artificial abortion methods were not recommended to replace each other at the present time.
authors.affiliation: National Research Institute for Family Planning, Beijing 100081, China.
authors.forename: Yan
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Zou
authors.forename: Yan
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Liang
authors.forename: Shang-chun
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: You-ping
authors.initials: YP
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Lin
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Yan
authors.forename: Ling
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Mei
authors.forename: Ju-qian
authors.initials: JQ
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Lin
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tong
mesh_terms: D000019:Abortifacient Agents / Q000009:adverse effects; D000028:Abortion, Induced / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D002755:Choice Behavior; D018849:Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015735:Mifepristone; D016595:Misoprostol; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011275:Pregnancy, Unwanted
chemical_list: D000019:Abortifacient Agents; D016595:Misoprostol; D015735:Mifepristone