Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37149516›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Effectiveness and adverse effects of vaginal misoprostol as a single agent for second trimester pregnancy termination: the impact of fetal viability.

Saipin Pongsatha, Nuchanart Suntornlimsiri, Theera Tongsong

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Saipin PongsathaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Nuchanart SuntornlimsiriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Theera TongsongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand. theera.t@cmu.ac.th.ORCID 0000-0002-3389-6478

Funding

Chiang Mai University CMU-2566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the effectiveness of vaginal misoprostol for second-trimester termination between pregnancies with a dead fetus in utero and those with a live fetus and to identify factors associated with the success rate.

methodsSingleton pregnancies with live fetuses and dead fetuses, between 14 and 28 weeks of gestation, with an unfavorable cervix, were recruited to have pregnancy termination with intravaginal misoprostol 400 mcg every 6 h.

resultsMisoprostol was highly effective for termination, with a low failure rate of 6.3%. The effectiveness was significantly higher in pregnancies with a dead fetus (log-rank test; p: 0.008), with a median delivery time of 11.2 vs. 16.7 h. Fetal viability, fetal weight or gestational age, and an initial Bishop score were significantly associated with the total amount of misoprostol dosage used for induction. Fetal viability and gestational age/fetal weight were still independent factors after adjustment for other co-factors on multivariate analysis.

conclusionVaginal misoprostol is highly effective for second-trimester termination, with significantly higher effectiveness in pregnancies with a dead fetus. Also, the effectiveness is significantly associated with birth weight/gestational age, and initial Bishop score.

Indexed as

Abortifacient Agents, NonsteroidalAbortion, InducedMisoprostolAdministration, IntravaginalFemaleFetal ViabilityHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondAbortifacient Agents, NonsteroidalMisoprostolDead fetus in uteroMisoprostolPregnancy terminationSecond trimester

Identifiers

PMID37149516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.