ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019
Comparison of Effectiveness and Patient Satisfaction of Vaginal Versus Oral Misoprostol in Treatment of Missed Miscarriage.
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the efficacy of sublingual, oral, and vaginal administration of misoprostol in the medical treatment of missed abortion during first trimester of pregnancy: A randomized clinical trial study.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years' medical management with misoprostol is an effective alternative to surgical evacuation. But there is a dearth of evidence to reveal the effectiveness of the different routes of misoprostol and satisfaction rate among the patients treated with these routes.
aimThis study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and patient's satisfaction rate of vaginal versus oral misoprostol.
methodsIt was a prospective non-interventional study. One hundred women of having missed abortion confirmed by ultrasonography examination were enrolled in the trial. Fifty-eight subjects were administered 200 mcg of oral and 42 subjects received 200 mcg of vaginal misoprostol every four hours up to four doses. If complete expulsion did not occur 12 hours after the last dose, the surgical evacuation was done.
resultsThere was no significant statistical difference between the effectiveness of treatment with vaginal (78.57%) and oral misoprostol (79.31%) (p = 0.928). The difference between Patients' satisfaction at the time of discharge for the vaginal group (64.29%) and oral group (65.52%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.991). There was an increase in patients' satisfaction for both groups at the follow-up session, but still, the difference was not significant (P = 0.897).
conclusionThis study confirms that there is no statistical difference between the effectiveness and patient satisfaction of oral and vaginal misoprostol in the treatment of missed abortion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.