Suppr超能文献

人工流产后绝育与间隔期绝育的安全性比较:一项对照研究。

Safety of postabortion sterilisation compared with interval sterilisation. A controlled study.

作者信息

Cheng M C, Chew S C, Cheong J, Choo H T, Ratnam S S, Belsey M A, Edstrom K E

出版信息

Lancet. 1979 Sep 29;2(8144):682-5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(79)92077-4.

Abstract

406 women--about one-fifth of those requesting an induced abortion and sterilisation over a thirty-three-month period--volunteered to be allocated randomly to either a concurrent induced-abortion/sterilisation group or a group which was sterilised six weeks after abortion. The abortion-attributable and sterilisation-attributable complication rates of 3.8% and 5.2%, respectively, for the concurrent group did not differ significantly from the 6.7% and 6.9% rates for the interval group. The estimated 2%-10% of women who would have changed their minds must be set against the 4% of women who became pregnant again before being sterilised. Efforts should be made to identify women likely to regret sterilisation.

摘要

406名女性——约占33个月内要求人工流产和绝育女性总数的五分之一——自愿被随机分配到同期人工流产/绝育组或流产六周后绝育组。同期组人工流产所致并发症发生率为3.8%,绝育所致并发症发生率为5.2%,与间隔组的6.7%和6.9%相比,差异无统计学意义。估计有2%-10%的女性可能会改变主意,这必须与4%在绝育前再次怀孕的女性相权衡。应努力识别可能会后悔绝育的女性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验