The magnitude and severity of abortion-related morbidity in settings with limited access to abortion services: a systematic review and meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Defining and accurately measuring abortion-related morbidity is important for understanding the spectrum of risk associated with unsafe abortion and for assessing the impact of changes in abortion-related policy and practices. This systematic review aims to estimate the magnitude and severity of complications associated with abortion in areas where access to abortion is limited, with a particular focus on potentially life-threatening complications. METHODS: A previous systematic review covering the literature up to 2010 was updated with studies identified through a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Popline and two WHO regional databases until July 2016. Studies from settings where access to abortion is limited were included if they quantified the percentage of abortion-related hospital admissions that had any of the following complications: mortality, a near-miss event, haemorrhage, sepsis, injury and anaemia. We calculated summary measures of the percentage of abortion-related hospital admissions with each complication by conducting meta-analysis and explored whether these have changed over time. RESULTS: Based on data collected between 1988 and 2014 from 70 studies from 28 countries, we estimate that at least 9% of abortion-related hospital admissions have a near-miss event and approximately 1.5% ends in a death. Haemorrhage was the most common complication reported; the pooled percentage of abortion-related hospital admissions with severe haemorrhage was 23%, with around 9% having near-miss haemorrhage reported. There was strong evidence for between-study heterogeneity across most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the challenges on how near miss morbidity has been defined and measured in the included studies, our results suggest that a substantial percentage of abortion-related hospital admissions have potentially life-threatening complications. Estimates that are more reliable will only be obtained with increased use of standard definitions such as the WHO near-miss criteria and/or better reporting of clinical criteria applied in studies.

Setting the research agenda for induced abortion in Africa and Asia.

Provision of safe abortion is widely recognized as vital to addressing the health and wellbeing of populations. Research on abortion is essential to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Researchers in population health from university, policy, and practitioner contexts working on two multidisciplinary projects on family planning and safe abortion in Africa and Asia were brought together for a workshop to discuss the future research agenda on induced abortion. Research on care-seeking behavior, supply of abortion care services, and the global and national policy context will help improve access to and experiences of safe abortion services. A number of areas have potential in designing intervention strategies, including clinical innovations, quality improvement mechanisms, community involvement, and task sharing. Research on specific groups, including adolescents and young people, men, populations affected by conflict, marginalized groups, and providers could increase understanding of provision, access to and experiences of induced abortion. Methodological and conceptual advances, for example in the measurement of induced abortion incidence, complications, and client satisfaction, conceptualizations of induced abortion access and care, and methods for follow-up of patients who have induced abortions, will improve the accuracy of measurements of induced abortion, and add to understanding of women's experiences of induced abortions and abortion care.

An inaccurate automated device negatively impacts the diagnosis and treatment of gestational hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Automated blood pressure devices are frequently introduced in maternity care without prior validation for their accuracy in pregnancy. Our objectives were to, firstly, establish the accuracy in pregnancy of a locally used device (Welch Allyn 300) and, secondly, to audit its impact on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Validation study: The device was evaluated using the grading criteria of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) (2010). Two observers took nine same-arm measurements alternating between the Welch Allyn and the mercury sphygmomanometer. Thirty-three women of any gestation were included. Clinical audit: One observer took three same-arm measurements alternating between the Welch Allyn and the mercury sphygmomanometer. One hundred women of any gestation referred with suspected hypertension were included. The main outcome measures were the proportion diagnosed with hypertension or commenced on anti-hypertensive treatment on the presenting visit when using either the manual or the automated device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Grading criteria of the ESH-IP (2010) and proportion of women diagnosed with hypertension or commenced on antihypertensive therapy at the presenting visit when using either manual sphygmomanometry or the Welch Allyn device. RESULTS: The Welch Allyn 300 series failed to meet the criteria of the ESH-IP (2010) for pregnancy. Compared to the mercury device, it under diagnosed hypertension by 48% and need for treatment by 80%. CONCLUSIONS: The Welch Allyn 300 cannot be recommended for the measurement of blood pressure in pregnancy. Its use leads to the under-diagnosis and under-treatment of gestational hypertension.