Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28138973›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage.

Caron Kim, Sharmani Barnard, James P Neilson, Martha Hickey, Juan C Vazquez, Lixia Dou

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

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04981457 (Comparative Study Between Combined Vaginal Misoprostol With Isosorbide-5-Mononitrate Versus Misoprostol Alone For Induction Of The First Trimester Missed Abortion A Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04981457 phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Study Between Combined Vaginal Misoprostol With Isosorbide-5-Mononitrate Versus Misoprostol Alone For Induction Of The First Trimester Missed Abortion A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled60ConditionsMissed AbortionArmsMisoprostol and iso sorbide mononitrates
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Medical methods for first trimester abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. 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
  12. Article
  13. Outcomes of medical management of miscarriage in an early pregnancy setting.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Diagnosis and management of early pregnancy loss.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Caron KimDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, 20 Avenue Appia, Geneva, Switzerland, 1211.
Sharmani BarnardCentre for Global Health, Kings College London, London, UK.
James P NeilsonThe University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Martha HickeyThe University of Melbourne, The Royal Women's Hospital, Level 7, Research Precinct, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Parkville 3052.
Juan C VazquezDepartamento de Salud Reproductiva, Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN), Zapata y D, Vedado, Habana, Cuba, 10 400.
Lixia DouCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Cochrane · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AUWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMiscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in the uterus ('evacuation of uterus'). However, medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe, and acceptable.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of any medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks). SEARCH

methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (13 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery, or alternative methods of medical treatment. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included 24 studies (5577 women). There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). We did not identify any difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Further studies, including long-term follow-up, are clearly needed to confirm these findings. There is an urgent need for studies on women who miscarry at more than 13 weeks' gestation.

Indexed as

Watchful WaitingAbortifacient Agents, NonsteroidalAbortion, IncompleteAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralDiarrheaExtraction, ObstetricalFemaleGestational AgeHumansMisoprostolNauseaPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVomitingAbortifacient Agents, NonsteroidalMisoprostol

Identifiers

PMID28138973
PMCPMC6464743
OpenAlexW1606709542

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.