Response to letter to the editor

摘要

We thank Dr. Creinin for his comments, and we are happy to respond. However, he has criticized us for a number of things that we did not say. This was a non-inferiority design, and the primary outcome of procedure time was not inferior within the specified margin. The word "preferable" does not appear in the manuscript. We stated our findings, which showed that we found that, in this study, women were more comfortable after mifepristone and had a preference for mifepristone. We did not use the word "proved" in the manuscript either. Dr. Creinin has criticized our choice of control group, in which three to six osmotic dilators were used. The method picked for the control group was the one in use at the time of study; this method is described as a standard method in a comprehensive abortion textbook [1]. Dr. Creinin prefers another method, which is described in a retrospective study [2]. There are several methods of cervical preparation in use currently; each has advocates, and there are ongoing comparison studies.