Surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers vs doctors: Total complications (observational studies) Provider or supervisor assessment
Surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers showed no clear difference in total complications (RCTs) Provider assessment compared with doctors (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers vs doctors Total complications (RCTs) Provider assessment · Patients requesting abortion procedures Surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers showed no clear difference in total complications (RCTs) Provider assessment compared with doctors (low certainty). Doctors or mid‐level providers for abortion (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.07 [0.16, 59.08] | 2 studies · 2789 participants | Low |
Surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers vs doctors Total complications (observational studies) Provider or supervisor assessment · Patients requesting abortion procedures It is very uncertain whether surgical abortion procedures: mid‐level providers changes total complications (observational studies) Provider or supervisor… compared with doctors (very low certainty). Doctors or mid‐level providers for abortion (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.36 [0.86, 2.14] | 4 studies · 16173 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doctors or mid‐level providers for abortion 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.