Cited by 84Reproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive System and PregnancyPregnancy and Medication Impact

A randomised trial of surgical, medical and expectant management of first trimester spontaneous miscarriage

SHELLEY, Julia M., HEALY, David, GROVER, Sonia·2005·Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract

Background Medical management and expectant care have been considered possible alternatives to surgical evacuation of the uterus for first trimester spontaneous miscarriage in recent years. Aim To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical and expectant management with surgical management for first trimester incomplete or inevitable miscarriage. Methods Forty women were recruited following diagnosis of incomplete or inevitable miscarriage, and randomised to surgical, medical or expectant care via an off-site, computerised enrollment system. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of medical (vaginal misoprostol) and expectant management relative to surgical evacuation, assessed at 10-14 days and 8 weeks post-recruitment. Infection, pain, bleeding, anxiety, depression, physical and emotional recovery were assessed also. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results Effectiveness at 8 weeks was lower for medical (80.0%) and expectant (78.6%) than for surgical management (100.0%). Two women in the medical group had confirmed infections. Bleeding lasted longer in the expectant group than in the surgical group. There were no significant differences in pain, physical recovery, anxiety or depression between the groups. 54.6%, 42.9% and 57.1% of the surgical, medical and expectant groups respectively would opt for the same treatment again. Conclusion Expectant care appears to be sufficiently safe and effective to be offered as an option for women. Medical management might carry…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1479-828x.2005.00357.x

Cites

2 of 2 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

Authors
SHELLEY, J. M., HEALY, D., & GROVER, S.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
SHELLEY, Julia M.
Venue
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03-09
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
122-127
ISSN
  • 0004-8666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-828X
OpenAlex
W2121676672
Cited by
84
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
first-trimester miscarriage, expectant management, medical management, surgical evacuation, misoprostol, incomplete abortion, uterine infection, postpartum hemorrhage, treatment effectiveness and safety, patient preferences
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal, Abortion, Spontaneous, Dilatation and Curettage, Female, Humans, 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