Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16855990›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks).

J P Neilson, M Hickey, J Vazquez

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03212352 (Mifepristone and Misoprostol Versus Misoprostol Alone for Uterine Evacuation After Early Pregnancy Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03212352 phase4terminatednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Mifepristone and Misoprostol Versus Misoprostol Alone for Uterine Evacuation After Early Pregnancy Failure: a Randomized Double Blind Placebo-controlled Comparison (Triple M Trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorRadboud University Medical CenterRan2018 to 2020Enrolled342ConditionsEarly Pregnancy FailureArmsMifepristone, Misoprostol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Expectant care versus surgical treatment for miscarriage.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  9. Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Medication Management of Early Pregnancy Loss in an Urban Texas Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Medication to Manage Abortion and Miscarriage.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. PURL: Early pregnancy loss: Pretreat with mifepristone?The Journal of family practice · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J P NeilsonUniversity of Liverpool, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK L8 7SS. jneilson@liverpool.ac.uk
M Hickey
J Vazquez
Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment before 14 weeks has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early pregnancy failure (anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic and fetal deaths before 24 weeks). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-random studies were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted unblinded. MAIN

resultsTwenty four studies (1888 women) were included. Vaginal misoprostol hastens miscarriage (complete or incomplete) when compared with placebo: e.g. miscarriage less than 24 hours (two trials, 138 women, relative risk (RR) 4.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.70 to 8.28), with less need for uterine curettage (two trials, 104 women, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60) and no significant increase in nausea or diarrhoea. Lower-dose regimens of vaginal misoprostol tend to be less effective in producing miscarriage (three trials, 247 women, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00) with similar incidence of nausea. There seems no clear advantage to administering a 'wet' preparation of vaginal misoprostol or of adding methotrexate, or of using laminaria tents after 14 weeks. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than vaginal prostaglandin E in avoiding surgical evacuation. Oral misoprostol was less effective than vaginal misoprostol in producing complete miscarriage (two trials, 218 women, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). Sublingual misoprostol had equivalent efficacy to vaginal misoprostol in inducing complete miscarriage but was associated with more frequent diarrhoea. The two trials of mifepristone treatment generated conflicting results. There was no statistically significant difference between vaginal misoprostol and gemeprost in the induction of miscarriage for fetal death after 13 weeks. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAvailable evidence from randomised trials supports the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment to terminate non-viable pregnancies before 24 weeks. Further research is required to assess effectiveness and safety, optimal route of administration and dose. Conflicting findings about the value of mifepristone need to be resolved by additional study.

Indexed as

Fetal DeathAbortifacient AgentsAbortion, InducedAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralFemaleHumansMifepristoneMisoprostolPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUltrasonography, PrenatalAbortifacient AgentsMifepristoneMisoprostol

Identifiers

PMID16855990
PMCPMC6464738
OpenAlexW4211199323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.