Cited by 80Reproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive System and PregnancyPregnancy and Medication Impact

Expectant, medical or surgical treatment for spontaneous abortion in first trimester of pregnancy: a cost analysis

You, Joyce H.S., Chung, Tony K.H.·2005·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol and expectant care have been shown to be acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation for treatment of spontaneous abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. The objective of this study was to analyse the cost of expectant care, misoprostol therapy and surgical evacuation. METHODS: A decision tree was designed to simulate the clinical outcome and health care resource utilization of surgical evacuation, misoprostol and expectant care for patients presenting with uncomplicated spontaneous abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. Clinical inputs were estimated from literature and the cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of a public health care provider in Hong Kong. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that the misoprostol group (1000 US dollars per patient) was the least costly alternative, followed by the expectant care (1172 US dollars per patient) and surgical evacuation (2007 US dollars per patient). Rates of complete abortion using misoprostol and expectant care were identified as influential factors. Monte Carlo simulation (10000 cohorts) showed that the misoprostol and the expectant care groups were less costly than the surgical evacuation group 100 and 88% of the time. The misoprostol group was less costly than the expectant group 100% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Misoprostol therapy appears to be the least costly approach for treatment of uncomplicated spontaneous abortion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dei163

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
You, J. H. S., & Chung, T. K. H.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
You, Joyce H.S.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2005-06-24
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
2873-2878
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2147764549
Cited by
80
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Hong Kong
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
miscarriage, first trimester, expectant management, misoprostol, surgical evacuation, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness, complete abortion, healthcare resource utilization, decision tree
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Spontaneous, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Decision Trees, Dilatation and Curettage, Health Expenditures, Female, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, 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