• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The Origins and Proliferation of Unfounded Comparisons Regarding the Safety of Mifepristone.关于米非司酮安全性的无端比较的起源与扩散
BioTech (Basel). 2025 May 24;14(2):39. doi: 10.3390/biotech14020039.
2
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
3
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
4
Pain management for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation.孕 14 周前药物流产的疼痛管理。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 13;5(5):CD013525. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013525.pub2.
5
Sertindole for schizophrenia.用于治疗精神分裂症的舍吲哚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
7
Adapting Safety Plans for Autistic Adults with Involvement from the Autism Community.在自闭症群体的参与下为成年自闭症患者调整安全计划。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):293-302. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0124. eCollection 2025 Jun.
8
Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.性虐待和暴力的心理社会干预的幸存者、家庭和专业人员的经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 4;10(10):CD013648. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013648.pub2.
9
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
10
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.抗抑郁药治疗成人慢性疼痛的疼痛管理:一项网络荟萃分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948.

本文引用的文献

1
Expectations and experiences of pain during medical abortion at home: a secondary, mixed-methods analysis of a patient survey in England and Wales.在家进行药物流产时对疼痛的期望与体验:对英格兰和威尔士一项患者调查的二次混合方法分析
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2025 Apr 9;51(2):137-143. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202533.
2
ACOG Committee Statement No. 13: Self-Managed Abortion.ACOG 委员会声明 No.13:自我管理的堕胎。
Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Dec 1;144(6):e152-e159. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005755.
3
Access and Safety-The FDA Drug Approval Conundrum.准入与安全——美国食品药品监督管理局的药品审批难题
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jul 1;7(7):e2419823. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19823.
4
Provision of Medications for Self-Managed Abortion Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision.《多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案前后自行堕胎药物的供应》。
JAMA. 2024 May 14;331(18):1558-1564. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4266.
5
Self-Managed Abortion in Africa: The Decriminalization Imperative in Regional Human Rights Standards.非洲的自我管理堕胎:区域人权标准中的非刑罪化必要性。
Health Hum Rights. 2023 Jun;25(1):171-183.
6
Science v. Ideology in Court: Mifepristone and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.法庭上的科学与意识形态:米非司酮与美国食品药品监督管理局
Ann Intern Med. 2023 Jun;176(6):857-858. doi: 10.7326/M23-0981. Epub 2023 Apr 18.
7
"Out of This World": Norwegian Women's Experiences of Medical Abortion Pain.“超乎想象”:挪威女性对药物流产疼痛的体验
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 Apr 4;16:889-898. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S399209. eCollection 2023.
8
The Evolution of Our Understanding of Penicillin Allergy: 1942-2022.青霉素过敏认识的演变:1942-2022 年。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2023 Feb;11(2):405-413. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.09.006. Epub 2022 Sep 15.
9
Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act.计划生育组织在2009年和2010年发现的米非司酮不良事件与美国食品药品监督管理局不良事件报告系统中的事件以及通过《信息自由法》获取的事件之比较。
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 21;8:23333928211068919. doi: 10.1177/23333928211068919. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
10
Deaths and Severe Adverse Events after the use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient from September 2000 to February 2019.2000 年 9 月至 2019 年 2 月使用米非司酮作为堕胎药后的死亡和严重不良事件。
Issues Law Med. 2021 Spring;36(1):3-26.

关于米非司酮安全性的无端比较的起源与扩散

The Origins and Proliferation of Unfounded Comparisons Regarding the Safety of Mifepristone.

作者信息

Louttit Cameron

机构信息

Charlotte Lozier Institute, Arlington, VA 22206, USA.

出版信息

BioTech (Basel). 2025 May 24;14(2):39. doi: 10.3390/biotech14020039.

DOI:10.3390/biotech14020039
PMID:40558388
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12191252/
Abstract

As part of the substantial public discourse surrounding the distribution and use of mifepristone, which is used with misoprostol to facilitate drug-induced abortions, claims comparing the safety of this regimen to that of common pharmaceuticals have emerged and proliferated. Offered in forums ranging from social media to the Supreme Court, these claims have so gained public acceptance that they are now echoed without scrutiny and, at times, reference. Yet the simplistic slogan that "mifepristone is safer than Tylenol", though easily disseminated, defies both an intuitive understanding of how we evaluate drug safety and our norms and regulations for doing so. Indeed, if such an assertion was attributable to the manufacturer, it would precipitate a reprimand by the FDA given the lack of specific, controlled, and head-to-head evidence rightly required for its support. To the extent that these claims persist, however, including among the outputs of medical societies, abortion centers, clinical researchers, and government officials, and to the extent that they aim to inform both individual and public decision-making, it is critical that the evidence offered for their support be thoroughly explored. Such examination reveals these claims to be wholly unfounded, offering deficient and disingenuous representations of safety for any of the drugs compared.

摘要

作为围绕米非司酮(与米索前列醇联合使用以促进药物流产)的分发和使用展开的大量公众讨论的一部分,将这种用药方案的安全性与常见药物的安全性进行比较的说法已经出现并不断扩散。这些说法出现在从社交媒体到最高法院的各种论坛上,已经如此获得公众认可,以至于现在人们不假思索地重复这些说法,有时甚至都不提及出处。然而,“米非司酮比泰诺更安全”这句简单的口号,尽管易于传播,却既违背了我们对药物安全性评估的直观理解,也违背了我们进行评估的规范和规定。事实上,如果这样的断言出自制造商,鉴于缺乏支持它所需的具体、对照和直接对比的证据,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)会对其进行斥责。然而,只要这些说法持续存在,包括在医学协会、堕胎中心、临床研究人员和政府官员的言论中,并且只要它们旨在为个人和公共决策提供依据,那么就必须彻底探究为支持这些说法而提供的证据。这样的审查表明这些说法完全没有根据,对所比较的任何药物的安全性都提供了有缺陷且不真诚的表述。