{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013605442176870748, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008746355685131196, 'mean_word_length': 4.988372093023256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A reassessment of menstrual regulation.

3 aspects of menstrual regulation (MR) are sources of disagreement: unnecessary procedures complications and the use of the flexible cannula. The 1st assessment of MR was at an international conference on menstrual regulation held in December 1973 in Honolulu. Subsequent studies have answered some of the questions left unresolved. It is agreed that there is a need for a better method of selecting patients to avoid unnecessary procedures. The number of days of amenorrhea required could be increased or a rapid highly sensitive pregnancy test could be employed. Complication rates reported by 3 researchers lack support for the conclusion that MR is safer than vacuum aspiration at 7-8 weeks. The importance of routine pregnancy tests at follow-up is stressed because MR has high rates of continuing pregnancy. Great advantages have been attributed to the flexible cannula but some investigators have found lack of advantages in either the flexible or the metal cannula over the other.