Comparison of misoprostol and manual vacuum aspiration for the treatment of incomplete abortion
Abstract
Objective To compare the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of misoprostol versus manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) for treatment of incomplete abortion in Maputo, Mozambique. Methods A total of 270 women with clinically diagnosed incomplete abortions of up to 12 weeks of gestation were randomized to either 600 mug oral misoprostol or MVA. Women were followed-up seven days later to evaluate whether the abortion was complete. Results Success was high for both MVA and misoprostol groups (100% vs 91%, P=0.002). Women in the MVA arm reported fewer side effects but higher pain scores. Women who received misoprostol were significantly more likely to be "very satisfied" with the treatment and willing to choose the method again. Conclusion Although oral misoprostol was less effective than MVA in this study, it was more acceptable to women. Misoprostol is well-suited for use in low-resource settings, and should be promoted as an option for the treatment of incomplete abortion.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trials in Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda have shown promising results of misoprostol being a satisfactory substitute for the treatment of incomplete abortion.
“Trials of the technique in Burkina Faso (41), Mozambique (42), Tanzania (43) and Uganda (44) have shown promising results of misoprostol being a satisfactory substitute for the treatment of incomplete abortion, and misoprostol is increasingly being considered as a method to address women's poor access to postabortion care.”
From Unsafe abortion and postabortion care - an overview (2011) · cites this paper as [42]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unsafe abortion and postabortion care - an overview
RASCH, V. (2011) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01165.x · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Choosing early pregnancy termination methods in Urban Mozambique
Mitchell, E. M. H., Kwizera, A., Usta, M., & Gebreselassie, H. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.025 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bique, C., Ustá, M., Debora, B., Chong, E., Westheimer, E., & Winikoff, B.
- Affiliations
- Gynuity Health Projects (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chong, E.
- ORCID
- Chong, E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-03
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 222-226
- ISSN
- 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
- 0020-7292
- 1879-3479
- OpenAlex
- W2138744238
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
- Keywords
- misoprostol, manual vacuum aspiration, incomplete abortion, abortion, treatment efficacy, treatment acceptability, adverse effects, resource-limited settings, Maputo, Mozambique
- MeSH terms
- Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Incomplete, Adult, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Mozambique, Pregnancy, Vacuum Curettage, Misoprostol, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
