Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022
Predicting the likelihood of successful medical treatment of early pregnancy loss: development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model.
Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Mifepristone and Misoprostol Versus Misoprostol Alone for Uterine Evacuation After Early Pregnancy Failure: a Randomized Double Blind Placebo-controlled Comparison (Triple M Trial)
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of successful expectant and medical management of miscarriage: A systematic review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Is a history of cesarean section a predictive factor for the failure of medical management in spontaneous abortion?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Fertility, time to pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes among women with recurrent miscarriages in the UK: a prospective observational longitudinal study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Machine learning model for differentiating malignant from benign thyroid nodules based on the thyroid function data.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Predicting outcomes of expectant and medical management in early pregnancy miscarriage using machine learning to develop and validate multivariable clinical prediction models.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are clinical predictors for successful medical treatment in case of early pregnancy loss (EPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Use of mifepristone, BMI, number of previous uterine aspirations and the presence of minor clinical symptoms (slight vaginal bleeding or some abdominal cramps) at treatment start are predictors for successful medical treatment in case of EPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Success rates of medical treatment for EPL vary strongly, between but also within different treatment regimens. Up until now, although some predictors have been identified, no clinical prediction model has been developed yet. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial in 17 Dutch hospitals, executed between 28 June 2018 and 8 January 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsWomen with a non-viable pregnancy between 6 and 14 weeks of gestational age, who opted for medical treatment after a minimum of 1 week of unsuccessful expectant management. Potential predictors for successful medical treatment of EPL were chosen based on literature and expert opinions. We internally validated the prediction model using bootstrapping techniques. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: 237 out of 344 women had a successful medical EPL treatment (68.9%). The model includes the following variables: use of mifepristone, BMI, number of previous uterine aspirations and the presence of minor clinical symptoms (slight vaginal bleeding or some abdominal cramps) at treatment start. The model shows a moderate capacity to discriminate between success and failure of treatment, with an AUC of 67.6% (95% CI = 64.9-70.3%). The model had a good fit comparing predicted to observed probabilities of success but might underestimate treatment success in women with a predicted probability of success of ∼70%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The vast majority (90.4%) of women were Caucasian, potentially leading to less optimal model performance in a non-Caucasian population. Limitations of our model are that we have not yet been able to externally validate its performance and clinical impact, and the moderate accuracy of the prediction model of 0.67. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsWe developed a prediction model, aimed to improve and personalize counselling for medical treatment of EPL by providing a woman with her individual chance of complete evacuation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Triple M Trial, upon which this secondary analysis was performed, was funded by the Healthcare Insurers Innovation Foundation (project number 3080 B15-191). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03212352.
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.