ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Oral versus Vaginal Micronized Progesterone for the Treatment of Threatened Miscarriage.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- PERİDER-TJOD joint review on threatened abortion and guideline for its treatment.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- No additional risk of congenital anomalies after first-trimester dydrogesterone use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction open · 2024Review
- Threatened miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage: Expert opinions on progesterone therapy and treatment challenges.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Article
- Progesterone: A Steroid with Wide Range of Effects in Physiology as Well as Human Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Subchorionic hematoma and pregnancy outcomes in patients with threatened miscarriage.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was planned with an aim to find out the effectiveness of oral versus vaginal micronized progesterone for the treatment of threatened miscarriage.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted at The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nishtar Hospital Multan, from August 2019 to January 2020. A total of 136 pregnant women, aged 18 to 45 years having vaginal bleeding were included and divided into two groups (68 women in each group). Participants in the Group-A were given oral micronized progesterone as 200mg twice a day while Group-B participants were given vaginal progesterone suppository 400mg once a day. All women were followed up until 20
resultsIn a total of 136 women enrolled, mean age was noted to be 30.85+3.34 years. Overall, mean gestational age was noted to be 9.3+2.7 weeks. A total of 98 women (49 in each group) completed the follow up and were included in the final analysis regarding outcome. Among Groups-A, 45 (91.8) had prevention of miscarriage while 4 (9.2%) had miscarriage in comparison to 36 (73.5%) in Group-B had prevention of miscarriage whereas 13 (26.5%) had miscarriage and this difference was statistically significant in between the both study groups as women in Group-A had significantly better outcome in terms of prevention of miscarriage. (P value = 0.0164).
conclusionThe use of oral micronized progesterone was found to be significantly more effective than vaginal progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage.
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.