Cited by 165Reproductive Health and ContraceptionPregnancy and Medication ImpactReproductive System and Pregnancy

A randomized controlled trial comparing medical and expectant management of first trimester miscarriage

Bagratee, J.S.·2004·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Background We aimed to determine whether outpatient treatment of miscarriage with vaginal misoprostol is more effective than expectant management in reducing the need for surgical evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPC). Methods Of 131 eligible women with first trimester miscarriage, 104 agreed to randomization to either 600 microg misoprostol or placebo intravaginally. They were assessed the following day and administered a second dose of their allocated treatment if miscarriage was not complete. Those not successful after two doses were seen on day 7, and, if miscarriage was not complete, an ERPC was performed. Results The success rate of medical management was 88.5% (46/52) compared with 44.2% (23/52) for expectant management. There was no significant difference in success rate (100 versus 85.7%) in women treated with an incomplete miscarriage. Women with early pregnancy failure had a success rate of 87% with misoprostol compared with 29% with expectant management [odds ratio (OR) 15.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.26, 48.37]. The complete miscarriage rate was achieved quicker in the medical group than the expectant group by day 1 (32.7 versus 5.8%) and by day 2 (73.1 versus 13.5%) of treatment. There were no differences in side-effects, bleeding duration, analgesia use, pain score and satisfaction with treatment. Women in the expectant group made more outpatient visits (5.06 versus 4.44%; OR = -0.62, 95% CI -1.04, -0.19). More women in the medical group (9…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/deh049

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
Bagratee, J. S.
Affiliations
University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
Corresponding author
Bagratee, J.S.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
266-271
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2123057653
Cited by
165
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
11.54
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
first-trimester miscarriage, expectant management, misoprostol, medical management of miscarriage, retained products of conception, surgical evacuation, incomplete abortion, early pregnancy failure, treatment satisfaction, adverse effects
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Spontaneous, Administration, Intravaginal, Adult, Female, Humans, Placebos, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, 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