|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the acceptability of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA). Methods: We searched CBMdisc (1978-2014), CNKI (1979-2014), Wanfang Database (1982-2014), VIP Database (1989-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), Cochrane Library and searched other related journals manually to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparing MVA with electric vacuum aspiration (EVA). The quality of included trials was assessed. RevMan5.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: Five trials were included, in which 3 RCTs were graded B and 2 were graded C. There were no significant difference in the degree of patients' satisfaction with the operation between MVA group and EVA group ［RR (95%CI) value was 1.02 (0.87, 1.20)］. There were no significant difference in the proportion of patient who would choose the same type of procedure again between MVA group and EVA group ［RR (95%CI) value was 1.04 (0.91, 1.18)］. More providers in MVA group considered the procedure was difficult to conduct, showing statistically significant difference between the two groups ［RR (95%CI) value was 4.63 (2.14，9.99)］. Conclusion: Based on the current evidence, MVA has the similar acceptability compared to EVA. However, more providers consider MVA is difficult to conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
