Is Transabdominal Sonography Comparable to Transvaginal Sonography for Eligibility Assessment Prior to Medical Abortion? A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Phase: NA
Conditions: Abortion Early
Sponsor: Columbia University

NCT03047551 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is transabdominal sonography comparable to transvaginal sonography for eligibility assessment prior to 
medical abortion?  
 
 
Annie Fu MD and Caitlin Weber MD 
Carolyn Westhoff MD MSc 
Anne Davis MD MPH 
Columbia University 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
April 6, 2016 (Last IRB Approval 02/20/2018) 
Contact information: 
Annie Fu: af2842@cumc.columbia.edu, 917-562-8119 
Caitlin Weber: cw2875@cumc.columbia.edu, 203-644-4427 

2 
 
 
Project summary 
 
Ultrasound use in the assessment of medical abortion eligibility varies by practice site. The National 
Abortion Federation (NAF), the Society of Family Planning (SFP), and the World Health Organization 
(WHO) guidelines do not recommend the routine use of ultrasonography; however, many institutions and 
practices still require this as part of clinic protocol. Furthermore, many clinicians routinely perform 
transvaginal sonography (TVS), a more invasive assessment than transabdominal ultrasound (TAS). 
Reliance on ultrasound in general, and TVS specifically, decreases access to medical abortion by 
requiring facilities to purchase and maintain an ultrasound machine, employ trained staff, and perform 
high-level disinfection (HLD) between examinations. Studies have investigated ways to improve access 
to medical abortion through a variety of approaches to simplifying care and removing barriers in a variety 
of practice settings.  
 
Our project takes a health services research approach to simplifying medical abortion. We will perform a 
multicenter, randomized controlled trial in practices that routinely use TVS to compare how often 
clinicians order additional testing prior to medical abortion after the use of either TVS or TAS to assess 
medical abortion eligibility. We plan to study providers of different clinical backgrounds and in different 
clinical settings. We anticipate enrolling approximately 800 patients receiving care from about 30 
providers over 6-8 months. Clinicians who routinely provide medical abortion with TVS at Columbia 
University Medical Center (CUMC) and Planned Parenthood of Central and Greater Northern New Jersey 
(PPCGNNJ) will participate. 
 
Women who present for medical abortion will be eligible for this study, and will undergo a routine 
evaluation including relevant history, abdominal examination, and randomization to receive either TVS or 
TAS. Following evaluation, providers will make a clinical decision regarding the patient’s eligibility for 
medical abortion, and will proceed with usual care. We will evaluate the proportion of women in the TVS 
and TAS groups for whom providers ordered additional testing or additional visits prior to making a 
decision regarding eligibility.  
 
Our primary study outcome will be the proportion of women whose clinician orders additional evaluation 
after sonography and prior to determination of medical abortion eligibility. We hypothesize this 
proportion will be greater among those randomized to TAS (non-inferiority boundary of 80%). That is, if 
clinicians order additional testing in less than 20% of women undergoing TAS, we will consider TAS to 
be non-inferior to TVS.  
 
Our second major outcome will be patient satisfaction after ultrasound examination. We hypothesize 
satisfaction will be greater among those randomized to TAS. Following study activities, each participant 
will complete a satisfaction questionnaire regarding the type of ultrasound she received (TVS or TAS) 
using a visual analog scale (VAS) and be asked, if she were to require an ultrasound in the future, which 
she would prefer.  
 
The results from this study could demonstrate that when TAS is used, clinicians order additional testing in 
a greater proportion of patients than when TVS is used. However, we hypothesize this difference in 
proportions will fall within a non-inferiority boundary of 80%. Although we expect a difference, we 
anticipate that this difference in proportions will not be so large that using TAS instead of TVS will be 
burdensome to providers, clinics, or patients. Many providers in the US already have TVS capabilities 
and HLD, and may desire to continue using this tool. For such providers, however, switching from TVS 
to TAS for most patients could reduce costs and increase patient satisfaction. For potential providers who 
do not have TVS capabilities, our results will help to estimate how often TAS would be sufficient to 
provide care versus how often patients might need a referral for additional testing.  

3 
 
 
 

4 
 
 
1. Description of the project 
 
1.1 Rationale and objectives of the study 
 
1.1.1 Rationale 
 
Medical abortion accounts for an increasing proportion of abortions performed in the United States; as of 
2012, 20.8% of all abortions were medical abortions.1 Medical abortion use, however, lags behind the 
large increase in access some, including Finer and colleagues, anticipated when mifepristone was first 
introduced in the United States; most medical abortions are still performed by physicians and at facilities 
where surgical abortion is also offered.2,3,4 Many barriers to access remain, including the routine reliance 
on ultrasound for pregnancy dating, supported by legislative requirements as well as specific clinic 
protocols and provider preferences.5,6 Routine use of ultrasonography and particularly TVS may be a 
holdover secondary to its use in early clinical trials of medical abortion efficacy - its use has remained a 
part of many providers’ clinical practice despite evidence that it is not always necessary. Proposals to 
improve access include simplification of the medical abortion process by eliminating routine sonography, 
eliminating the initial in-person visit,7 home use of mifepristone,8,9,10 involving more non-physician 
clinicians in care,11,12,13,14,15 increasing services offered in the primary care setting,16,17,18,19 allowing for 
remote forms of follow-up,20,21,22,23,24 and numerous other proposed strategies.25,26,27 Many of the 
approaches under investigation are either directly or indirectly related to telemedicine, which is 
increasingly being used in clinical settings to increase access to care, both in the rural United States, and 
around the world, and is acceptable to both patients and providers.28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35  
 
Many U.S. abortion providers will not prescribe mifepristone (Mifeprex) for first trimester medical 
abortion without confirming early intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) by ultrasound, and these early dating 
ultrasounds are commonly performed transvaginally. Without ultrasound, providers are concerned about 
underestimating gestational age or missing a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Although ectopic 
pregnancy is rare among women seeking abortion,36,37,38 serious morbidity could occur due to delayed 
diagnosis. Organizations including NAF,39,40,41 WHO,42 the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists (ACOG),43 and others44,45 recommend ultrasonography at the physician’s discretion. The 
Mifeprex prescribing information also supports ultrasound only as needed,46 yet many sites still require 
this as part of standard clinic protocol.  
 
The routine use of TVS or TAS requires facilities providing medical abortion to purchase and maintain an 
ultrasound machine and employ trained and certified staff. TVS (but not TAS) additionally requires the 
use of HLD between examinations.47 These factors can be burdensome or even prohibitive in many clinic 
settings. HLD requirements are particularly cumbersome; HLD requires expensive equipment up front, 
expensive supplies (including the proprietary disinfection solution) on an on-going basis, and costly 
replacement of probes which degrade with repeated transfers and disinfection. Furthermore, the time 
required for disinfection between patients interferes with clinic flow and operations. For example, the 
Trophon EPR high level disinfection system has a 7.5 minute disinfection cycle. In addition, providers or 
staff must detach the probe from the US machine, wipe off the ultrasound gel, run the disinfection cycle, 
wipe off the chemical solution, and replace the probe, a process that can easily take 15 minutes. Less 
expensive HLD systems take even longer, with some disinfection cycles lasting up to 45 minutes, and 
also may require clinics to have negative pressure ventilation systems to avoid toxicity from the 
disinfectant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stringent guidelines on both 
instrument maintenance and healthcare facility auditing.48,49 Hospitals are generally in compliance 
secondary to Joint Commission requirements; however, few practices and clinics are in compliance given 
these onerous requirements and related costs.  
 

5 
 
Studies have examined outcomes of medical abortion provided in settings without routine use of 
ultrasound (such as many locations outside the United States), discussed below in section 1.2. In the 
proposed study, we will quantify the proportion of women whose providers order additional testing to 
determine medical abortion eligibility and will compare this proportion between those who received TVS 
and those who received TAS. We will assess patient satisfaction with each method of ultrasound and 
compare these results. Our literature review yielded no prior studies examining outcomes of TVS 
compared with TAS, nor are there any randomized controlled trials including acceptability as an outcome. 
We will collect data from a range of providers who currently routinely rely on TVS.  
 
This study, specifically, would be of value for the many clinicians who currently use TVS for all medical 
abortion patients and could support using TAS rather than TVS in a majority of these patients. The results 
could also provide guidance on how often practice settings without TVS and HLD would be able to 
provide medical abortion, and for which patients. Such settings could include primary care or rural 
clinics, any low volume clinics, or those where the costs and time associated with the HLD required for 
use of TVS prohibit or limit the provision of medical abortion. In addition, even high-volume specialty 
family planning clinics would benefit from a reduction in use of TVS. One of our collaborators 
anticipates the cost of implementing HLD in their clinical setting would be at least $100,000 in capital 
costs alone. If TVS is used infrequently, a busy clinic could make do with one HLD system. However, if 
every patient receives TVS, the costs associated with such frequent HLD use will be much higher. If our 
results show routine use of TAS only requires a small increase in the proportion of patients who receive 
additional testing prior to medical abortion, it could be both cost-effective and possibly more satisfactory 
to women to provide TAS for most patients. Cost savings could come from decreased use of HLD itself, 
increased lifespan of transvaginal probes, decreased time spent for patients to undress and dress for 
exams, and overall streamlined patient flow. We therefore propose a randomized controlled trial aimed at 
improving the health care processes around provision of medical abortion and provider assessment of 
eligibility. 
 
In the US, many providers have sonography available and use it routinely. However, even in the US, 
many clinics may seek to offer medical abortion without sonography, and other researchers are studying 
this type of approach. This proposed study will evaluate a more intermediate change in practice, primarily 
geared towards the large number of providers who routinely provide transvaginal ultrasound. For those 
providers, moving from TVS to TAS could be both cost effective and acceptable to patients.  
1.1.2 Objectives and hypotheses 
 
We hypothesize that for the majority of patients seeking medical abortion, history plus TAS will be 
comparable (non-inferior) to history plus TVS in the assessment of medical abortion eligibility. In our 
own recent clinical experience, approximately 5.1% (standard error 2.0%) of patients required further 
clinical testing after TVS before determination of eligibility. Conversely, 94.9% of patients did not 
require additional testing. Our objectives include:  
 
Primary Outcomes: 
 
1. Hypothesis 1: We hypothesize that history and TAS will be sufficient to determine eligibility in 
more than 80% of patients (thus our non-inferiority boundary is 80%).  
a.  Evaluate how often the provider orders additional tests (see table 1, in Appendix) prior to 
providing medical abortion, but after:  
i. History plus TAS or,  
ii. History plus TVS 
b. Evaluate whether the results for TAS exceed the non-inferiority boundary of 80% 

6 
 
2. Hypothesis 2: We hypothesize that patient satisfaction and acceptability will be greater for TAS 
compared to TVS, based on visual analog scale rating performed by patients following visit. We 
found no direct data to inform us about the likely size of the difference in acceptability of TVS 
compared to TAS, as this has not previously been studied (see Section 1.2).   
a. Assess which ultrasound modality is preferable (“In the future, if you had the choice to 
receive either TVS or TAS, which would you prefer?”)  
b. Evaluate if acceptability varies according to patient characteristics including: 
i. Gestational age 
ii. Ultrasound experience 
iii. Abortion or other obstetric experience 
iv. Additional factors (e.g. age)  
 
Secondary Outcomes: Identify patient and provider characteristics associated with ordering additional 
tests: 
a. Gestational age (GA) by LMP (</= 35 days vs. 35-49 days vs. > 49 days, vs. uncertain 
GA)  
b. Body mass index (BMI) and history of Cesarean delivery  
c. Provider type or experience (physician, APC) 
d. Site (CUMC, PPCGNNJ) 
e. Secular trends within the study (first third of patients seen by providers vs. last third of 
patients) 
f. Early pregnancy failure 
 
Note: The use of sonography or other strategies for follow-up and cost-effectiveness analyses are also 
important, but are beyond the scope of this project. 
 
1.2 Previous related studies  
 
As noted in section 1.1.1, related studies include those comparing various methods of pregnancy dating to 
one another, as well as those that more specifically consider outcomes of medical abortion when 
ultrasound is only used “as indicated,” and not routinely. Some of these have examined the overall 
effectiveness and safety of medical abortion outside of the United States, often in places without access to 
ultrasound, or where it is not used on a routine basis, revealing few complications or adverse 
events.50,51,52,53,54 Multiple studies have evaluated the use of any ultrasound prior to medical 
abortion,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 including two review articles suggesting that in most cases clinicians can use LMP 
to estimate gestational age and routine sonography is unnecessary.62,63    
 
None of these studies compared TVS and TAS for determining gestational age or eligibility, need for 
further testing, or patient acceptability. In 2011, Kulier and Kapp64 performed a review to determine 
whether the use of pre-abortion ultrasound had an effect on safety or efficacy, but found no published data 
addressing this question. 
 
Despite the evidence provided by previous studies, the largest medical abortion provider in the US, 
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), routinely uses TVS for most patients seeking 
medical abortion. CDC recommendations for HLD of all endoprobes, however, make continued routine 
TVS use unsustainable. Given the great scrutiny PPFA receives, the organization will only change its 
guidelines in this regard with high quality evidence supporting an alternative and reliable method of 
pregnancy dating. 
 
While many providers continue to routinely use ultrasound, TAS may be a less costly, more widely 
available, and acceptable alternative to TVS. Lohr et al65 compared TAS to TVS prior to medical abortion 

7 
 
and found that abdominal sonography was 100% sensitive for detecting a gestational sac but only 68% 
sensitive for detecting an embryonic pole; the sensitivity decreased further as BMI increased. This study 
did not address practice implications of switching to TAS. We have found no prior studies looking at 
whether women who receive TAS prior to medical abortion then undergo more additional testing 
compared to TVS. This question is particularly important because of the dramatic new expenses related to 
implementing HLD requirements. 
 
Research on the acceptability of ultrasound modalities for patients is also limited. One study from 1997 
considered acceptability of TVS in the first trimester, finding that it was overall acceptable and well-
tolerated.66 Others have assessed the acceptability of TVS for diagnostic purposes (such as assessing 
follicular development and ruling out pelvic pathology).67 One small study evaluated acceptability of TVS 
in 107 women presenting with vaginal bleeding in the first trimester, finding that 99% would agree to 
have a TVS if needed in the future.68 While women in these studies found TVS acceptable, no 
randomized trials evaluate acceptability of these ultrasound modalities in women presenting for abortion. 
We were unable to find prior studies using a VAS to quantify patient satisfaction for a diagnostic test such 
as ultrasound, as most similar studies use a Likert scale or other measurement tools.  
 
1.3 Design and methodology 
 
1.3.1 Research design and general methodological approach  
 
This will be a randomized controlled trial comparing TAS to TVS in medical abortion eligibility 
assessment. With this trial, we aim to improve healthcare processes under real-world conditions at 
specific clinics where providers now routinely use TVS prior to medical abortion. We will consult the 
SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 guidelines69,70 and 
the CONSORT guidelines, specifically the Practihc (Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trials in Health 
Care) reporting guidelines.71,72,73 Study protocols will closely match usual care at these sites to help 
ensure high generalizability of the results of this pragmatic trial. 
 
To evaluate clinician practices at different sites, we plan to enroll women at a hospital-based clinic system 
(including sites serving Medicaid patients and a faculty practice serving commercially insured patients), 
and one Planned Parenthood affiliate. Sites will vary in location, ranging from urban clinics to large 
suburban practices. This will provide diverse study participants and providers. Please see Table 2 (in 
appendix) for further details on each potential site. Currently, these sites routinely perform TVS before 
medical abortion.  
 
1.3.1.a: Sites 
 
We will enroll participants at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and Planned Parenthood of 
Central and Greater Northern New Jersey affiliate (PPCGNNJ). We met with Elizabeth Talmont, Vice 
President of Research Development at PPCGNNJ, to discuss our proposed study at length and visited 
these clinics. Clinics affiliated with CUMC and PPCGNNJ have relevant research experience, including 
randomized controlled trials and abortion research.  
 
1.3.1.b: Participants 
 
Study participants will include women with an estimated gestational age up to 70 days based on LMP, 
who desire medical abortion and present to any of our study sites for care. Study participants will 
complete a questionnaire regarding demographic information as well as experiences with abortion, 
including medical abortion specifically, delivery, miscarriage, TAS, and TVS. Further inclusion and 

8 
 
exclusion criteria are listed below in section 1.3.2. Study forms will not include any personal identifiers 
and all participants will be assigned study identification numbers to protect confidentiality. 
 
1.3.1.c: Training, Study Coordinators 
 
A study coordinator at each site will be on location during patient care sessions when medical abortion is 
provided. The study coordinator will obtain informed consent from all patients at time of enrollment. 
Study coordinators will also be responsible for ensuring completion of all study documents including: 
baseline patient and provider characteristics; information on history, physical exam, and imaging results 
via chart abstraction; and subsequent clinical outcomes for any individual who did not receive medical 
abortion on the date of study enrollment. As clinic charting and routine practice vary between sites (for 
example, PPCGNNJ uses paper charts while CUMC uses an electronic medical record system), study 
coordinators will receive standardized training on all study protocols and additional practice in chart 
abstraction based on study site.  
 
Prior to study initiation, the investigators will practice chart abstraction for up to 100 charts from each 
clinical site to 1) improve abstraction tools and familiarize study staff with differing medical record 
systems, 2) ascertain a more precise estimate of the proportion of patients who need further testing, and 3) 
troubleshoot any potential problems. The investigators will then train the coordinators in chart abstraction 
prior to study initiation. Investigators will provide coordinators with 10 charts where further testing was 
ordered and 20 charts where no additional testing was ordered, to develop skills in relevant chart 
abstraction. 
 
1.3.1.d: Training, Providers 
 
Prior to participation, providers who routinely offer medical abortion at the study sites will complete a 
questionnaire regarding professional characteristics. Investigators will provide a training session for all 
providers at each site to review TAS (i.e. techniques and standardized reporting) as we assume some 
providers have less experience with this when compared to TVS in early pregnancy. This training session 
will help minimize differences in TVS and TAS related to provider experience or variability in current 
practice. In addition, prior to participant enrollment, each clinic site will have a one-week “run-in period,” 
during which providers will perform both TVS and TAS to accustom providers and clinic staff to study 
protocols. Study coordinators will abstract charts using study forms during this run-in period for all study 
endpoints.  
 
 
1.3.1.e: Intervention 
Using the appointment log, the attending physician will identify women scheduled for abortion services 
that match eligibility criteria and provide these names to the onsite study coordinator. The attending 
physician can delegate identifying eligible study participants to the onsite coordinator, depending on 
clinic flow and protocols. Coordinators will explain the study, enroll patients, obtain informed consent, 
and administer a baseline questionnaire.  
 
All patients seeking medical abortion will undergo routine intake, history, and exam per regular clinic 
protocol. The study will not require additional testing outside of routine care, which can include a detailed 
menstrual and reproductive history, measurement of height and weight, or performance of a urine 
pregnancy test. Prior to ultrasound, study coordinators will provide the sonographer with a sealed, 
opaque, and sequentially numbered envelope indicating ultrasound assignment (TVS or TAS), and the 
appropriate test will be performed (see section 1.3.3 for additional details on randomization). After 
completion of the assigned ultrasound, the provider will use all available information to make a clinical 

9 
 
decision, and the woman will either proceed to receive a medical abortion or undergo further testing if 
required by the provider. We expect that some participants who do not require additional testing may 
decide to undergo surgical abortion, due to personal preference or due to gestation age and they will not 
be excluded from analysis.   
 
Coordinators will abstract information from patient records regarding clinical characteristics (BMI), 
ultrasound results (including if a miscarriage was diagnosed), plan of care, and whether any further 
testing was ordered or performed (including type of testing). Coordinators will abstract this information 
within one week of the index visit. All study sites include this documentation in the clinical record. 
 
1.3.1.f: Outcomes 
 
After history and the assigned ultrasound examination, providers will make an assessment and clinical 
plan for that participant. That plan of care may include provision of medical abortion that day or 
additional testing (see Table 1). For example, if a provider is concerned about ectopic pregnancy, further 
testing could include a pelvic exam, transfer to the emergency department, or additional tests or 
interventions. Study coordinators will abstract the details of additional evaluation performed from patient 
charts.  
 
While we will enroll only patients specifically presenting for medical abortion, we will collect data for 
women who are found to be at too advanced a gestational age to proceed with medical abortion, those 
who decide during the course of their evaluation that they would prefer an aspiration procedure, those 
who are diagnosed with miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, and those who decide to continue the 
pregnancy.  
 
At the end of their visit, study participants will complete a standardized questionnaire including a 100 mm 
visual analog scale (VAS) to assess the acceptability of the type of ultrasound they were randomized to 
receive. We will therefore be able to compare acceptability of ultrasound between women randomized to 
receive TVS or TAS. We will also ask whether these participants would prefer TVS or TAS in future 
gynecologic care.  
 
In summary, the main outcomes of this study are: 1) how often the provider orders additional testing in 
each randomization group (TVS or TAS); and 2) patient acceptability scores for each US modality. 
Secondary outcomes will include subgroup analyses, including provider type, provider experience, site, 
and patient characteristics. However, we anticipate some limitations to such analyses based on sample 
size and will be focusing on the two primary outcomes.74 
 
1.3.1.g: Other 
 
We will register our trial with ClinicalTrials.gov. Please see section 1.3.9 for more information regarding 
data management.  
 
1.3.2 Criteria for selection of subjects  
 
1.3.2.a: Inclusion criteria for providers and sites 
 
Physicians (specializing in either Obstetrics/Gynecology or Family Medicine), nurse practitioners, and 
other advanced practice clinicians who provide medical abortion services and routinely use TVS prior to 
medical abortion are eligible for this study. All clinics selected for this study currently provide medical 
abortion up to 70 days from LMP. Our study will not require any change to current protocols used at 
these clinics when scheduling patients for medical abortion. All clinics use clinical charting (either EMR 

10 
 
or paper charts) which have pre-specified templates from which relevant data can be extracted, including 
all tests that have been ordered or performed. 
 
1.3.2.b: Exclusion criteria for providers and sites 
 
Providers who do not provide medical abortion services are not eligible.  
 
1.3.2.c: Inclusion criteria for patients 
 
Eligible patients include English- or Spanish-speaking women seeking medical abortion, 18 years or 
older. They will be at an estimated gestational age up to 70 days from LMP.  
 
1.3.2.d: Exclusion criteria for patients  
 
We will exclude women under 18 years old. Since parental consent is required for participation in 
research, inclusion of younger women could impair patient confidentiality. There are otherwise no study-
specific exclusion criteria. If after enrollment, a woman proves to be at too advanced a gestational age for 
medical abortion (>70 days from LMP), elects aspiration abortion, has an ectopic pregnancy, or has an 
early pregnancy failure, she is still eligible for participation and will be included in the analysis. 
 
1.3.3 Subject recruitment and allocation  
 
Please see Table 2 for specific characteristics of proposed study locations, including details of each site’s 
capacity and providers. These sites may change depending on workflow and patient volume. We plan to 
start enrollment at one CUMC site and one PPCGNNJ site; both sites are diverse in both patient and 
provider types. Once these sites are well-integrated, we will decide if we need to add more clinics to 
bolster participation and enrollment. We plan to include more sites as needed based on needed sample 
size and recruitment rate.   
 
We will randomize patients to the type of ultrasound using a 1:1 ratio, stratified by site, with half of the 
participants at each site being randomized to receive TAS, and half to receive TVS. Block size will be 
created using simple randomization; block size will vary between 4 and 6.  An investigator experienced 
with generating randomized sequences and not directly involved in this study will be responsible for 
creating the entire randomization schedule; first, by defining the sequence of block sizes and second, by 
defining the assignments within each block.  Most of the fellows in the last decade in this division have 
carried out randomized trials as part of fellowship projects and thus division staff has substantial 
experience in generating the lists. The central research office at CUMC will prepare opaque, sealed 
envelopes containing cards indicating whether a given patient has been randomized to receive either TVS 
or TAS. These envelopes and cards will be sequentially numbered, corresponding to site, and sequentially 
numbered study enrollment logs. The allocation will remain concealed from the sonographer as well as 
the participant and provider until the coordinator provides the ultrasound randomization envelope to the 
sonographer, following the consent and enrollment process. The sonographer will open the sealed, opaque 
envelope immediately prior to the ultrasound examination, which will then be performed according to 
randomization assignment.  
 
There will be no blinding. Even if the clinician providing care does not perform the ultrasound, by 
viewing the image and interpreting the results they would immediately be able to see if TVS or TAS was 
performed. It is also not feasible to blind study participants to the type of ultrasound being performed. A 
study in which participants undergo both types of US, but the clinician uses only one for clinical decision 
making would be possible, but would not improve on the planned study.   
 

11 
 
1.3.4 Description of the drugs and devices to be studied  
 
All clinics participating in this study provide medical abortion using the evidence-based regimen of 
mifepristone and misoprostol. This includes mifepristone 200 mg orally on day 1 in the office, followed 
by misoprostol 800 mcg buccally 24-48 hours later, at home. Mifepristone, or Mifeprex, is manufactured 
by Danco Laboratories, LLC (P.O. Box 4816 New York, NY 10185). There are multiple manufacturers of 
misoprostol; at CUMC by Greenstone, LLC (100 Route 206 North Peapack, NJ 07977), and at Planned 
Parenthood of Greater and Central New Jersey by Novel Laboratories, Inc. (390 Campus Dr., Somerset, 
NJ 08873).  
 
1.3.5 Admission procedure  
 
The clinician in charge of clinic operations for a given patient care session will review their schedule and 
identify patients for potential enrollment, or they may delegate identification to an onsite study 
coordinator. The study coordinator will then approach all eligible patients and if the patient is interested 
and agrees to participate, obtain informed consent. Participants will undergo the assessment as described 
in section 1.3.1.e.  
 
1.3.6 Follow-up procedure  
 
This is a single-day study; follow-up evaluation of medical abortion is not a specific aim of this study and 
all participants will follow-up with their provider per each site’s individual protocol. For example, at 
CUMC, enrolled participants will return for a repeat ultrasound and physical exam in 1-2 weeks to assess 
completion of medical abortion. For those patients who do not receive an abortion on the day of study 
enrollment, study coordinators will perform follow-up chart abstraction to ascertain eventual outcome 
(i.e. abortion performed at later date, surgical abortion performed, patient elected to continue pregnancy, 
ectopic pregnancy diagnosed, etc.). Study coordinators will also perform chart abstraction to record 
details about any additional testing ordered and final clinical outcome as available two weeks from the 
time of the enrollment visit. 
 
1.3.7 Criteria for discontinuation  
 
1.3.7.a: Provider component 
 
Providers may choose to discontinue participation in this study at any point. We anticipate overall 
participation to last for at least four months and for at most eight months for each provider. 
 
1.3.7.b: Patient component 
 
Patients can withdraw from the study at any point. The duration of the study for each patient may vary; 
the patient may be present in the clinical environment for several hours from registration to discharge. 
However, study-specific activities for each participant will last no more than 1-2 hours.  
 
1.3.8 Laboratory and other investigations  
 
All women seeking abortion who are involved in this study will undergo a routine evaluation as part of 
routine care. This will begin with intake per clinic routine, followed by history, physical examination 
(vital signs, abdominal exam), and then either TVS or TAS depending on randomization. We will 
compensate clinical sites for the cost of additional testing beyond their usual practice in the group 
randomized to receive TAS, under the assumption that this group will undergo additional testing due to 
study participation, compared to those who receive TVS. 

12 
 
 
Ultrasound machines and HLD systems vary by site. At Planned Parenthood and CUMC, providers utilize 
the LOGIQ P5 ultrasound manufactured by GE Healthcare. Planned Parenthood will be utilizing the 
Trophon EPR HLD system manufactured by GE Healthcare and CUMC utilizes Cidex OPA, 
manufactured by ASP.  
 
1.3.9 Data management  
 
The CUMC Division of Family Planning and Preventive Services currently employs a research manager 
and five research coordinators who will be available to assist with this study. The research manager will 
assist the investigators with IRB preparation and submission, staff training manuals, and will carry out 
data monitoring. We will assign some study tasks to research coordinators depending on expertise and 
availability. If necessary, we will hire a new research coordinator to assist with data management. 
 
We will collect all study data using paper forms. The central research office staff will obtain logs, 
distribute study forms to sites, and collect data for every 10-20 enrollments at each site, or at least on a 
twice monthly basis. Study coordinators will be responsible for abstracting data from all patient charts 
and using study forms to compile this information, as described in section 1.3.1.c. Investigators will 
review 10% of charts abstracted by study coordinators in order to assess adherence to standardized data 
collection and recording. Investigators will develop a study database in Research Electronic Data Capture 
(REDCap), a mature, secure, web-based application for building and managing surveys and databases. 
This system has been IRB-approved for use here at CUMC and research office staff is familiar with its 
use. Using single data entry, research staff will enter all data from research forms into this database. 
Following data entry, all forms will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the research office until study 
completion and manuscript publication.  
 
All staff members involved with data management will be required to complete CUMC’s Research 
Compliance and Administration System (RASCAL) and HIPAA trainings. Only research team members 
will be permitted access to study data. All data will be managed on CUMC-encrypted computing devices 
which are password-protected, fire-walled devices linked to a secure server located within the Department 
of Obstetrics and Gynecology.  
 
1.3.10 Data analysis  
 
First, we will evaluate baseline characteristics of all women entered into this study. We will also evaluate 
if randomization was successful in creating comparable groups. We will use a test of difference in 
proportions to compare outcomes in this study. We will compare the overall proportions with additional 
testing. We will also compare acceptability of TVS vs. TAS and assess satisfaction. For our secondary 
analyses, we will compare subgroups defined by provider and provider type, clinic site, and based on 
clinical characteristics including GA, BMI, and previous C/S. We will evaluate whether there is a 
difference in the proportion receiving additional tests in the TVS and TAS groups that is associated with 
any of these variables (physician provider compared to APC provider, Ob/Gyn physician compared to 
Family Medicine physician, obese participant compared to normal weight participant, etc.). We will use 
SAS to analyze our findings, as both fellows currently have access to SAS and use it routinely as part of 
graduate school studies.  
 
 
1.3.11 Number of subjects and statistical power  
 
This randomized study among women seeking medical abortion will compare the proportion of women 
who require additional testing after either TVS (usual care) or TAS (the intervention). The study also will 

13 
 
compare patient satisfaction with TVS compared to TAS. The first objective (comparing rate of additional 
testing) drives the sample size calculations. Table 3 provides the results; below we present our analysis. 
 
Our estimate of additional testing ordered after TVS comes from our own clinic where a new fellow 
without previous medical abortion experience ordered additional tests (see table 1) in 9 out of 120 patients 
(7.5%, standard error ±2.4%).On further analysis, 3 of these patients had previously been seen for 
possible miscarriage or pregnancy of unknown location. Therefore, 6 of 117 patients referred specifically 
for medical abortion received additional testing (5.1%, standard error ±2.0%).The main reason for 
ordering additional tests was the inability to identify an intrauterine pregnancy by TVS. Most of these 
patients received a combination of serial quantitative hCG levels or repeat sonography; all were 
ultimately found to have very early intrauterine pregnancies identified upon follow-up. The rate of 
additional testing ordered might be lower in the hands of more experienced clinicians and sonographers; 
however, we are unaware of any other estimates. Performing additional chart abstraction in preparation 
for the study (described above) will permit a more precise estimate of further testing at these sites.   
 
Our base assumption is that 5-7.5% of patients will need additional testing after TVS. We also expect to 
see the greatest variability between TVS and TAS findings between 35 and 49 days estimated gestational 
age, compared to those less than 35 days and greater than 49 days. Prior to 35 days, we expect neither 
TVS nor TAS to be able to identify a gestational sac for most women (thus resulting in additional testing 
in both groups), and after 49 days we expect both TVS and TAS to usually be able to identify a 
gestational sac with fetal pole (thus resulting in less additional testing in both groups). Between 35 and 49 
days, however, we expect some proportion of patients to have a gestational sac with or without a yolk sac 
identifiable on TVS but not on TAS and in this range, the proportion of patients for whom clinicians order 
additional tests may be higher. We expect the proportion where providers encounter uncertainty, leading 
to additional testing, would be greater at earlier gestational ages and perhaps in those patients with an 
uncertain LMP or irregular cycle (questions we will be formally evaluating as described in Hypothesis #1, 
section 1.1.2).  
 
Further, we expect clinicians to order more testing after TAS because TAS has lower resolution than 
TVS. The transabdominal probe is further from the uterus, and thus uses a lower frequency to achieve a 
longer focal length. TAS typically uses a 3-6 mHz probe while TVS uses a probe with 5-10 mHz 
frequency. TAS may have even less resolution in an obese patient as the distance to the uterus will be 
greater; obesity’s effect of decreasing resolution was noted in a prior study by Lohr et al.63  
 
We expect additional testing after TVS to mainly include serial quantitative beta-hCG tests and additional 
visits for a repeat sonogram. We expect that additional testing after TAS would include the same, plus 
same-day use of TVS if TAS inadequate to confirm eligibility for medical abortion. At all study sites, 
immediate TVS will be available 
 
We have no expectation that TAS would be equal or superior to TVS in identifying an early IUP, 
therefore, we will calculate the sample size for the planned study based on identifying a non-inferiority 
margin and using a one-sided alpha level. We will consider a large margin of inferiority to be acceptable 
in this comparison for two reasons. First, some additional testing following TAS use may be acceptable 
because the large reduction in the need for HLD (by decreasing use of TVS) would enhance clinic 
operations and thus ultimately benefit patients. Second, clinical anecdotes indicate that patients prefer 
TAS to TVS because they don't need to get undressed and because it is a less intrusive and uncomfortable 
examination. Thus, even if using TAS might require additional testing more often, we expect that this 
trade-off would be acceptable to patients and to clinic managers. The second primary objective of the 
proposed study will evaluate the existence and strength of the (possible) preference for TAS over TVS. If 
patients prefer TAS, clinicians will need to consider this a trade-off with additional testing.  
 

14 
 
The program for calculation of sample size for non-inferiority tests comes from GJ Stoddard.75 We set 
alpha at 0.05, and are performing a one-sided test as we do not expect that TAS would be superior to 
TVS. We evaluated a number of alternative assumptions, including power of 80% and 90%, a p1 
(following TVS) of 5% and 10%, a p2 (following TAS) of 10%, 15% and 20%, and a non-inferiority 
margin of 15% - 25%, and we show select results in Table 3. We will be basing our analysis on an 
inferiority boundary of 80%, as shown in row 1 of this table (p1=5% and p2=10%). 
 
Table 3: Non-inferiority measures for 1-sided hypothesis test (one-sided of 5%, power of 80%) 
 
p1 (TVS) 
p2 (TAS) 
Inferiority Margin 
Inferiority Boundary 
n (number of 
participants per 
arm) 
5% 
10% 
-10% 
80% 
340  
7.5% 
15% 
-10% 
75% 
394 
 
1.3.12 Study limitations  
 
Our project is a randomized controlled trial that will aid us in better answering the question of whether 
TAS provides sufficient information or changes the need for further testing to determine medical abortion 
eligibility, when compared to TVS. Providers’ judgment still may have an important effect on our clinical 
outcomes, however, our endpoint is whether the provider orders a test or not.. Subjectivity is certainly 
possible, even likely, but our design replicates the real-world healthcare setting in which providers 
currently routinely use TVS. We are using the Practihc extension to the CONSORT guidelines to assist us 
in designing this study in a way that will provide useful information for our health-services study 
question. 
 
We anticipate possible differences in outcomes based on provider type and experience. For this reason, 
we are attempting to include a variety of providers and analyze these differences, as discussed above. We 
may have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients for certain provider types (such as family 
physicians) to demonstrate any real differences in proportions between groups and are therefore not 
basing our power calculations on such planned analyses. We visited multiple family medicine clinics in 
preparation for this study, but ultimately excluded these study sites due to low medical abortion volume. 
Additional details regarding practice volume at proposed study sites within CUMC and PPCGNNJ are 
included in Table 1.  
 
1.3.13 Duration of project  
 
The anticipated duration of this project will include eight months for enrollment and an additional six 
months for data analysis.  
 
1.4 Project management  
 
The primary faculty mentor for this study is Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, with additional mentorship by Dr. 
Anne Davis. Planned Parenthood of Central and Greater Northern New Jersey is the only site outside of 
CUMC where we will be enrolling providers and patients. Annie Fu will be primarily responsible for 
analyzing data regarding the proportion of women who receive additional testing and Caitlin Weber will 
be focusing on analysis of the patient satisfaction data. Both fellows will share responsibility for 
preparation of study documents and protocols, and for training providers and coordinators on study 
protocols. Both fellows will also analyze data regarding secondary outcomes, following work on primary 
outcomes. 
 

15 
 
1.5 Links with other projects 
 
Gynuity Health Projects is currently running a single-arm trial with approximately 300 participants 
evaluating “no-touch” medical abortion. While not directly linked, our study’s findings will complement 
their research and contribute to the body of literature on methods of determining medical abortion 
eligibility that could help improve access and decrease costs.  
 
1.6 Main problems anticipated  
 
We anticipate some challenges integrating study protocols with preexisting workflows at the research 
sites. Some locations use ancillary staff for portions of the patient evaluation, such as medical assistants 
collecting basic history information, or other staff members performing sonography. To assess any 
disruption in workflow and associated redundancies or delays, we interviewed multiple medical abortion 
providers, including those working at our proposed study sites, to clearly identify the range of clinic 
workflows, and consider approaches to integrating study protocols that would be less disruptive. We 
anticipate that the main potential disruption to workflow would be utilizing TAS instead of a routine TVS 
in these sites where it is not currently performed routinely, and have planned provider training and a run-
in period to mitigate this issue (see Section 1.3.1.d,).  
 
We are planning this project as a multicenter study, which we expect to introduce some additional 
challenges. While initially envisioned as a larger study at multiple sites outside of our own institution, in 
order to minimize challenges with IRB approval, we will enroll only providers at CUMC and PPCGNNJ 
and we will therefore only require CUMC and PPCGNNJ IRB approval. In addition, PPCGNNJ sites are 
easily accessible by public transportation and car.  
 
This Planned Parenthood affiliate also has research experience including current participation in a large 
multicenter trial investigating self-administration of Depo Provera, being carried out by the Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Research department. Dr. Westhoff is a co-investigator of that 
trial. This affiliate has excellent compliance with study protocols and has a skilled staff prepared to 
handle a randomized trial such as the one proposed in this study. PPFA’s study monitors have found these 
sites to have excellent adherence to research requirements. 
 
1.7 Expected outcomes of the study and dissemination of findings  
 
We anticipate that the difference in the proportion of patients receiving additional testing prior to medical 
abortion after TAS will fall within a non-inferiority boundary of 80% when compared to the proportion 
receiving additional testing after randomization to TVS, in sites where providers are currently routinely 
using TVS. As the proportion of women receiving TVS who need further testing is low, between 5-10%, 
we suspect the use of TAS instead will not change management for the majority of patients.  
 
Some providers already forgo TVS in certain patients, but the results from this study could help 
demonstrate that even fewer patients require this step and help clinic administrators better anticipate 
costs, workflow, and staffing needs. By decreasing the use of routine TVS, many clinics could see a 
significant reduction in operational costs by avoiding the routine need for HLD after each patient. A 
switch to TAS could improve clinic workflow, help avoid a potentially unacceptable portion of the 
examination for patients, and increase access to care by allowing clinics without HLD capabilities to 
provide care for patients. Even if TAS results in 20% of patients requiring further testing, 80% of patients 
will not need additional evaluation. This is still an acceptable and desirable outcome as clinics can 
eliminate the need for HLD for 80% of patients.  
 

16 
 
Minimal research has examined patient acceptability during the medical abortion evaluation process and 
we identified no published data comparing acceptability with TVS and TAS. From prior research, TVS is 
an acceptable modality for the majority of patients, but some research has shown that use of TVS (in 
pregnant women) can carry “significant levels of psychological trauma.”76 We suspect women may find 
TVS less acceptable than TAS due to its more invasive nature, but are interested to know if any particular 
patient characteristics are associated with differences in acceptability. We expect that eliminating routine 
use of TVS will lead to an improved, less invasive and more patient-centered clinical experience.  
 
Following completion of this project, we intend to write manuscripts for publication, in addition to 
presenting findings in multiple venues including at our own institution and at the Fellowship in Family 
Planning Annual Meeting. We will also present these results to Medical Affairs at Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America and the National Medical Committee. 
 
We see this project as a complement to other work attempting to simplify the medical abortion process, 
while still maintaining both high quality and patient-centered care. We hope that our work will contribute 
to the continually growing body of health services research.  
 
2. Ethical considerations  
 
2.1 Informed decision-making and confidentiality 
 
Approval of the Institutional Review Board at CUMC and Planned Parenthood will occur prior to 
initiation of the study. All patient and provider information will be kept confidential, in accordance with 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines.  
 
All participants will receive copies of consent forms following enrollment and provision of informed 
consent. Participants are able to withdraw from the study at any point during their visit. While this is a 
randomized study, we do not anticipate any significant risks to patients in either group.77 For Spanish-
speaking participants, all necessary forms and questionnaires will be translated into Spanish, and accuracy 
of translated materials verified and approved by CUMC Translation Center, in accordance with IRB 
requirements.  
 
Study forms will not include any personal identifying information. All subjects will have a study 
identification number to protect patient confidentiality. A master file linking ID to the subject’s name will 
be kept in the research office at CUMC as discussed in section 1.3.9.   
 
 
 
Personnel 
Annie Fu, MD (40% effort) and Caitlin Weber, MD (40% effort) are the primary investigators. Dr. Fu 
will predominantly be responsible for the Planned Parenthood clinical sites and Dr. Weber will assume 
responsibility over the CUMC clinical sites. They will develop the quantitative instruments for the study 
and will assume overall responsibility for research coordinator training, data collection, statistical 
analyses, and manuscript preparation. They will recruit all of the providers into the study and take the 
lead on separate parts of the analysis as provided in the detailed protocol. No salary support is requested 
from this application.  

17 
 
Carolyn Westhoff, MD, MSc, Co-Investigator (10% effort, in kind) will work closely with Drs. Fu and 
Weber and assist in the design and implementation of all study protocols. Additionally, she will 
collaborate with Drs. Fu and Weber on the statistical analysis and manuscript preparation.  
Anne Davis, MD, MPH, Co-investigator (10% effort, support through fellowship funds) will work 
closely with Drs. Fu and Weber and assist in the design and implementation of all study protocols. 
Additionally, she will collaborate with Drs. Fu and Weber on the statistical analysis and manuscript 
preparation.  
Yenny Villela, RDMS, Research Coordinator and certified sonographer (100% effort for 10 months) will 
facilitate implementation of the study. She will be at the CUMC clinics to recruit patients, provide them 
with informed consent, perform all intake procedures, and assist with training. She will also collect 
provider forms, perform data entry, and perform chart abstraction.   
TBN, the data analyst (350 hours) will assist with managing data input. 
Renee Peele, MPA, Administrator (10% effort) will manage all personnel and budget issues throughout 
the study. She will track supplies and process compensation for study participants.  
Claudia Roca, MPH, Research Manager (20% effort) will track IRB approval, oversee the research 
coordinator, manage and maintain administrative study files, handle communication between the 
investigators, track IRB approval and monitor CUMC and Planned Parenthood Central and Greater 
Northern New Jersey sites. 
Elizabeth Talmont, MSN, NP, Co-Investigator (5% effort, in kind) will work closely with Drs. Fu and 
Weber and will be responsible for the implementation of study procedures at the Planned Parenthood 
sites.   
TBN, Research Coordinator (100% effort for 8 months) will be at the clinics to recruit patients, provide 
them with informed consent, perform all intake procedures and assist with chart abstraction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

18 
 
Appendix: 
Table 1: Potential additional testing ordered by providers 
 
Additional visit (within 1 week) for reassessment 
 
TVS (performed following TAS on the same day of service or at the additional visit) 
 
Pelvic examination (bimanual) 
 
Quantitative serum β-hCG levels 
 
Urine pregnancy test 
 
Diagnostic aspiration procedure 
 
Referral for urgent evaluation (i.e. at an urgent care center or the emergency department) 
 
Other methods not listed here 
 
Table 2: Proposed Research Sites 
 
Clinical Site 
Clinic Type Providers 
Insurance 
Setting 
Average 
med ab 
volume/ 
month 
CUMC 
VC10 
Hospital-
based  
3 O/G 
1 FM 
M 
Urban 
30 
1790 
Broadway 
Private 
practice 
4 O/G  
C/S 
Urban 
8 
Farrell 
Hospital-
affiliated 
2 FM  
M 
Urban  
8 
PPCGNNJ 
Elizabeth 
Free-
standing 
clinic  
3 O/G  
1 FM  
1 NP 
M/C/S 
Urban 
80 
Hackensack 
1-3 NP 
M/C/S 
Suburban 
60 
Morristown 
1 NP 
3 O/G  
M/C/S 
Suburban 
50 
Trenton 
1-3 NP 
M/C/S 
Urban  
30 
Total 
Up to 7 
available 
sites1 
 
21-25  
(13 O/G, 4 
FM, 4-8 NP) 
 
 
266 
Key: O/G = Obstetrician/Gynecologist physician, FM = Family Medicine physician, M = Medicaid 
insurance, C = Commercial insurance, NP = Nurse Practitioner, S = self-pay.  
1Not all sites will be used in the study unless otherwise indicated, e.g. for improved 
enrollment/recruitment. 
 
 
 
                                                          
References: 
1 Pazol K, Creanga AA, Jamieson DJ. Abortion surveillance—United States, 2012. Morbidity and 
Mortality Weekly Report, 2015, Vol. 64, No. SS-10. 
2 Finer LB, Wei J. Effect of mifepristone on abortion access in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 
2009;114:623-30. 

19 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
3 Jordan B, Shields WC. Happy anniversary mifepristone: a decade of promises and challenges. 
Contraception 2010;82(3):219-20. 
4 Boonstra HD. Mifepristone in the United States: status and future. Guttmacher Rep Public 
Policy.2002;5:4–7. 
5 Guttmacher Institute, State policies in brief: requirements for ultrasound as of September 1, 2015, 2015, 
<http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf>, accessed Sep. 4, 2015. 
6 Guttmacher Institute, Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: 2014 state policy review, 2014, 
<http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2014/statetrends42014.html>, accessed Sep. 4, 2015. 
7 Raymond E, Grossman D, Wiebe E, Winikoff B. Reaching women where they are: eliminating the 
initial in-person medical abortion visit. Contraception 2015;92:190-3. 
8 Chong E, Frye L, Castle J, Dean G, Kuehl L, Winikoff B. A prospective, non-randomized study of home 
use of mifepristone for medical abortion in the U.S. Contraception 2015;92:215-219. 
9 Gold M, Chong E. If we can do it for misoprostol, why not for mifepristone? The case for taking 
mifepristone out of the office in medical abortion. Contraception 2015;92:194-196. 
10 Grossman D, Goldstone P. Mifepristone by prescription: a dream in the United States but reality in 
Australia. Contraception 2015;92:186-189. 
11 Harper C, Ellertson C, Winikoff B. Could American women use mifepristone-misoprostol pills safely 
with less medical supervision? Contraception 2002;65:133-142. 
12 Berer M. Provision of abortion by mid-level providers: international policy, practice and perspectives. 
Bull World Health Organ 2009;87:58-63. 
13 Foster AM, Jackson CB, LaRoche KJ, Simmonds K, Taylor D. From qualified physician to licensed 
health care professional: the time has come to change mifepristone’s label. Contraception 2015;92:200-
202. 
14 Kopp Kallner H, Gomperts R, Salomonsson E, Johansson M, Marions L, Gemzell-Danielsson. The 
efficacy, safety and acceptability of medical termination of pregnancy provided by standard care doctors 
or by nurse-midwives: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. BJOG 2015;122:510-517. 
15 Warriner JK, Wang D, My Huong NT, Thapa K, Tamang A, Shah I, Baird DT, Meirik O. Can midlevel 
health-care providers administer early medical abortion as safely and effectively as doctors? A 
randomised controlled equivalence trial in Nepal. Lancet 2011;377:1155-61. 
16 Bennett IM, Baylson M, Kalkstein K, Gillespie G, Bellamy SL, Flesichman J. Early abortion in family 
medicine: clinical outcomes. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:527-533. 
17 Prine LW, Lesnewski R. Medication abortion and family physicians’ scope of practice. JABFP 
2005;18(4):304-306. 
18 Prine L, Shannon C, Gillespie G, Crowden WA, Fortin J, Howe M, Dzuba I. Medical abortion: 
outcomes in a family medicine setting. J Am Board Fam Med 2010;23:509-513. 
19 Wu JP, Godfrey EM, Prine L, Andersen KL, MacNaughton H, Gold M. Women’s satisfaction with 
abortion care in academic family medicine centers. Fam Med 2015;47(2):98-106. 
20 Grossman D, Grindlay K. Alternatives to ultrasound for follow-up after medication abortion: a 
systematic review. Contraception 2011;83:504-510. 
21 Blum J, Shochet T, Lynd K, Lichtenberg ES, Fischer D, Arnesen M, Winikoff B, Blumenthal PD. Can 
at-home semi-quantitative pregnancy tests serve as a replacement for clinical follow-up of medical 
abortion? A US study. Contraception 2012;86:757-762. 
22 Bracken H, Lohr PA, Taylor J, Morroni C, Winikoff B. RU OK? The acceptability and feasibility of 
remote technologies for follow-up after early medical abortion. Contraception 2014;90:29-35. 
23 Michie L, Cameron ST. Simplified follow-up after early medical abortion: 12-month experience of a 
telephone call and self-performed low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test. Contraception 2014;89:440-445. 
24 Oppegaard KS, Qvigstad E, Fiala C, Heikinheimo O, Benson L, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Clinical 
follow-up compared with self-assessment of outcome after medical abortion: a multicentre, non-
inferiority, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:698-704. 

20 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
25 Rogo K. Improving technologies to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality. International 
Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2004;85(Suppl. 1):S73-S82. 
26 Clark W, Gold M, Grossman D, Winikoff B. Can mifepristone medical abortion be simplified? A 
review of the evidence and questions for future research. Contraception 2007;75:245-250. 
27 Cleland K, Smith N. Aligning mifepristone regulation with evidence: driving policy change using 15 
years of excellent safety data. Contraception 2015;92:179-181. 
28 Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth 
services using real time video communication. BMC Health Services Research 2010;10(233):1-13. 
29 Gomperts RJ, Jelinska K, Davies S, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Kleiverda G. Using telemedicine for 
termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol in settings where there is no access to safe 
services. BJOG 2008;115:1171-1178. 
30 Gomperts R, van der Vleuten K, Jelinska K, Veiera da Costa C, Gemzell-Danielsson, Kleiverda G. 
Provision of medical abortion using telemedicine in Brazil. Contraception 2014;89:129-133. 
31 Wiebe E. Use of telemedicine for providing medical abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014;124:177-8. 
32 Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Potter J, Schmertmann C. Changes in service delivery patterns 
after introduction of telemedicine provision of medical abortion in Iowa. Am J Pubic Health 2013;103:73-
78. 
33 Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Potter J, Schmertmann C. Changes in service delivery patterns 
after introduction of telemedicine provision of medical abortion in Iowa. Am J Pubic Health 2013;103:73-
78. 
34 Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Lane K, Blanchard K. Effectiveness and acceptability of 
medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:296-303. 
35 Grindlay K, Lane K, Grossman D. Women’s and providers’ experiences with medical abortion 
provided through telemedicine: a qualitative study. Women’s Health Issues 2013;23-2:e117-e122. 
36 Atrash HK, MacKay HT, Hogue CJR. Ectopic pregnancy concurrent with induced abortion: incidence 
and mortality. Am J Obstet Gyn. 1990;162(3):726-730. 
37 Shannon C, Brothers LP, Philip NM, Winikoff B. Ectopic pregnancy and medical abortion. Obstet 
Gynecol 200;104(1):161-7. 
38 Cleland K, Creinin MD, Nucatola D, Nshom M, Trussell J. Significant adverse events and outcomes 
after medical abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(1):166-171. 
39 National Abortion Federation, Protocol for mifepristone/misoprostol in early abortion in the U.S., 2013, 
<http://prochoice.org/resources/naf-protocol-for-mifepristonemisoprostol-in-early-abortion/>, accessed 
Aug. 30, 2015. 
40 National Abortion Federation. 2015 Clinical Policy Guidelines. 2015. 
<http://prochoice.org/resources/clinical-policy-guidelines/>, accessed Dec 1, 2015. 
41 Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG, Creinin M, editors. Management of 
unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell;2009. 
42 World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems, second 
edition. 2012, <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf>, accessed Oct. 
8 2015. 
43 ACOG Practice Bulletin: Medical Management of first-trimester abortion. 2014. 
44 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Best practice in comprehensive abortion care: best 
practice paper no. 2. London: RCOG Press, 2015. 
45 Kapp N, Whyte P, Tang J, Jackson E, Brahmi D. A review of evidence for safe abortion care. 
Contraception 2013;88:350-363. 
46 Mifeprex Prescribing Information. <http://earlyoptionpill.com/prescribing_information/>. Accessed 
December 2, 2015. 
47 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, AIUM Practice Guideline for Ultrasonography in 
Reproductive Medicine. AIUM Statement, 2008, 
<http://www.aium.org/resources/guidelines/reproductivemed.pdf>, accessed Sep. 4 2015. 

21 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
48 CDC Health Alert Network. CDC Advisory #34 - Immediate Need for Healthcare Facilities to Review 
Procedures for Cleaning, Disinfecting, and Sterilizing Reusable Medical Devices. Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, 2015. <https://a816-
health30ssl.nyc.gov/sites/nychan/Lists/AlertUpdateAdvisoryDocuments/Final_HAN%20382_Med%20Re
m_09112015.pdf>, accessed Sep. 11, 2015 
49 Rutala W, Weber D, and HICPAC. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 
2008, 2008. < http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf>, accessed Sep. 11, 
2015. 
50 Elul B, Hajri S, Ngoc NN, Ellertson C, Slama CB, Pearlman E, Winikoff B. Can women in less-
developed countries use a simplified medical abortion regimen? Lancet 2001;357:1402-1405. 
51 Coyaji K, Elul B, Krishna U, Otiv S, Ambardekar S, Bopardikar A, Raote V, Ellertson C, Winikoff B. 
Mifepristone-misoprostol abortion: a trial in rural and urban Maharashtra, India. Contraception 
2002;66:33-40. 
52 Mundle S, Elul B, Anand A, Kalyanwala S, Ughade S. Increasing access to safe abortion services in 
rural India: experiences with medical abortion in a primary health center. Contraception 2007;76:66-70. 
53 Louie KS, Tsereteli T, Chong E, Aliyeva F, Rzayeva G, Winikoff B. Acceptability and feasibility of 
mifepristone medical abortion in the early first trimester in Azerbaijan. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health 
Care 2014;19(6):457-64. 
54 Louie KS, Chong E, Tsereteli T, Avagyan G, Vardanyan S, Winikoff B. The introduction of first 
trimester medical abortion in Armenia. Reproductive Health Matters 2015;Supplement(44):56-66. 
55 Ellertson C, Elul B, Ambardekar S, Wood L, Carroll J, Coyaji K. Accuracy of assessment of pregnancy 
duration by women seeking early abortions. Lancet 2000;355:877-881. 
56 Savids DA, Terry JW, Dole N, Thorp JM, Siega-Riz AM, Herring AH. Comparison of prengnacy 
dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 
2002;187:1660-6. 
57 McGalliard C, Gaudoin M. Routine ultrasound for pregnancy termination requests increases women’s 
choice and reduces inappropriate tretments. BJOG 2004;111:79-82. 
58 Blanchard K, Cooper D, Dickson K, Cullingworth L, Mavimbela N, von Mollendorf C, van Bogaert LJ, 
Winikoff B. A comparision of women’s, providers’ and ultrasound assessment of pregnancy duration 
among termination of pregnancy clients in South Africa. BJOG 2007;114:569-575. 
59 Bracken H, Clark W, Lichtenberg ES, Schweikert SM, Tanenhaus J, Barajas A, Alpert L, Winikoff B. 
Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with 
mifepristone-misoprostol. BJOG 2011;118:17-23. 
60 Raymond EG, Bracken H. Early medical abortion without prior ultrasound. Contraception 
2015;92(3):17-23. 
61 Fielding SL, Schaff EA, Nam N. Clinicians’ perception of sonogram indication for mifepristone 
abortion up to 63 days. Contraception 2002;66:27-31. 
62 Schonberg D, Wang L, Bennett AH, Gold M, Jackson E. The accuracy of using last menstrual period to 
determine gestational age for first trimester medication abortion: a systematic review. Contraception 
2014;90:480-487. 
63 Kaneshiro B, Edelman A, Sneeringer RK, Ponce de Leon RG. Expanding medical abortion: can 
medical abortion be effectively provided without the routine use of ultrasound? Contraception 
2011;83:194-201. 
64 Kulier R, Kapp N. Comprehensive analysis of the use of pre-procedure ultrasound for first- and second-
trimester abortion. Contraception 2011;83:30-33. 
65 Lohr PA, Reeves MF, Creinin MD. A comparison of transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasonography 
for determination of gestational age and clinical outcomes in women undergoing early medical abortion. 
Contraception 2010;81:240-44. 
66 Braithwaite JM, Economides DL. Acceptability by patients of transvaginal sonography in the elective 
assessment of the first-trimester fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:91-93. 

22 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
67 Rosati P, Guariglia, L. Acceptability of early transvaginal or abdominal sonography in the first half of 
pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2000; 264: 80-83.  
68 Dutta RL, Economides, DL. Patient acceptance of transvaginal sonography in the early pregnancy unit 
setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 503-507.  
69 Moher D, Chan AW. SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventioanl Trials). 
In: Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, Wager E, ed. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: 
A User’s Manual. 1st  ed. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd;2014:57-67. 
70 Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, IKrleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 
statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(3):200-7.  
71 Zwarenstein M. CONSORT for Pragmatic Trials. In: Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, 
Wager E, ed. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual. 1st  ed. Oxford: John Wiley & 
Sons, Ltd;2014:113-121. 
72 Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting 
of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008; 337:a2390. Epub 2008/11/13.  
73 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting 
parallel group randomised trials. BMJl. 2010; 340: c332.  
74 Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses. Lancet 
2005;365:1657-61. 
75 Stoddard GJ. Biostatistics and Epidemiology using STATA: A course manual. Salt Lake City, 
UT;2012. 
76 Clement S, Candy B, Heath V, To M, Nicolaides KH. Transvaginal ultrasound in pregnancy; its 
acceptability to women and maternal psychological morbidity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22(5): 
508-14.  
77 Kerr C, Robinson E, Stevens A, Braunholtz D, Edwards S, Lilford R. Randomisation in trials: do 
potential trial participants understand it and find it acceptable? J Med Ethics 2004;30(1):80-4.