Randomised trial of expectant versus surgical management of spontaneous miscarriage
Abstract
Thirty-five women with retained products of conception after spontaneous miscarriage were randomised to expectant (n = 19) or surgical (n = 16) management, respectively. Women were reviewed at one week, two weeks and six months. There were no significant differences in the number of days of pain, bleeding, sick leave or return to normal periods. Nine of twelve women from the expectant group and six of nine from the surgical group who attempted to conceive did so by six months. All 16 women were satisfied with conservative management. This study provides further reassurance when considering expectant management for spontaneous miscarriage both in the short and medium term.
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?
Three small randomised controlled trials have compared expectant management and surgical management of miscarriage.
“Three small randomised controlled trials have compared expectant management and surgical management of miscarriage.5-7”
From Management of miscarriage: expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial) (2006) · cites this paper as [5]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trinder, J., Brocklehurst, P., Porter, R., Read, M., Vyas, S., & Smith, L. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38828.593125.55 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Petrou, S., Trinder, J., Brocklehurst, P., & Smith, L. (2006) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00998.x · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Petrou, S., & McIntosh, E. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00459.x · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chipchase, J., & James, D.
- Affiliations
- Queen's Medical Centre (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chipchase, Jeremy
- ORCID
- James, David
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-07
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 840-841
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W1996190930
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
- Keywords
- miscarriage, expectant management, surgical management, retained products of conception, miscarriage management, patient satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Incomplete, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Fertilization, Postpartum Hemorrhage, Humans, Pain, Pregnancy, Patient Satisfaction, Sick Leave
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
