Cited by 105Reproductive Health and ContraceptionPregnancy and Medication ImpactReproductive System and Pregnancy

Vaginal misoprostol as medical treatment for first trimester spontaneous miscarriage

Ngai, S. W.·2001·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Background Misoprostol is effective for cervical priming prior to suction evacuation in first trimester pregnancy termination. This is the first randomized study to compare vaginal misoprostol versus expectant treatment in women presenting with spontaneous miscarriage. Methods Sixty women presenting with spontaneous miscarriage were recruited to the study at the Queen Mary Hospital between 1998 and 1999. They were randomized to group 1: misoprostol; and group 2: expectant management. Women in the misoprostol group received vaginal misoprostol 400 microg on days 1, 3 and 5. The expectant group was followed up according to the same schedule. Suction evacuation was performed if there was excessive bleeding or abdominal pain; or if a gestational sac was detected by transvaginal scan on day 15. Results Fifty-nine women completed the trial. Those who did not require suction evacuation up to the time of return of normal menstruation were considered to be successful. The incidence of side-effects was comparable between the two groups. Three women in the expectant group and one in the misoprostol group underwent emergency suction evacuation because of excessive bleeding. The mean duration of vaginal bleeding was similar for both groups (14.6 days in the misoprostol group versus 15.0 days in the expectant group). The successful rate in the misoprostol group was significantly higher than that of the expectant group (83.3 versus 48.3%, P Conclusion We recommend repeated vaginal misoprost…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/16.7.1493

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ngai, S. W.
Affiliations
Queen Mary Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Ngai, S. W.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
1493-1496
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2159347147
Cited by
105
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
Keywords
misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, miscarriage, early pregnancy loss, expectant management, suction evacuation, cervical priming, miscarriage treatment
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Administration, Intravaginal, Adult, Emergency Treatment, Female, Humans, Oxytocics, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Uterine Hemorrhage, Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical, Misoprostol, Treatment Outcome

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