Local anaesthesia for pain control in surgical abortion before 14 weeks of pregnancy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abortions are common and associated with procedural pain. We aimed to evaluate benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. METHODS: We searched a systematic review on local anaesthesia for pain control for surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. We searched multiple databases through December 2022. We evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) instrument and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Outcomes included intraoperative pain (with dilation, aspiration or procedure), patient satisfaction and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria and the majority were judged as low risk of bias. Intervention protocols were heterogeneous, limiting meta-analysis. A 20 mL 1% lidocaine paracervical block (PCB) reduced pain with dilation compared with sham PCB (mean difference (MD) -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36) and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n=120; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL 1% chloroprocaine was associated with a slight reduction in pain during aspiration compared with normal saline PCB injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, n=79; high-certainty evidence). Other RCTs compared a range of local anaesthetic types, PCB techniques and topical anaesthetics. Participants reported moderately high satisfaction with any type of pain control and studies reported few adverse events that were rarely medication-related. CONCLUSION: RCT evidence supports PCB efficacy but was inconsistent and of low certainty for topical anaesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".