ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2023
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of surgical versus medical method for first trimester pregnancy termination in Iran: A quasi-experimental research.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Misoprostol in Comparison to Dilatation and Curettage for Treatment of First-Trimester Missed Abortion (Gestational Age ≤ 14 Weeks) in Iran.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Effect of oral mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol for early abortion among Indian women.Bioinformation · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe surgical and medical options for management of pregnancy termination procedures are acceptable in practice but differ in clinical efficacy, costs, and patient experiences, and deciding what the best method is not clear always. This study aimed to compare clinical efficacy, outcomes, and patient acceptance of dilatation and curettage (D and C) versus medical abortion using misoprostol for first trimester of gestation in Iranian context. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, multicenter, quasi-experimental research conducted from July 2021 to January 2022. The primary outcomes were the rate of composite complications or complete abortion. Data were analyzed with SPSS 18 using descriptive statistics, independent t-test, analysis of variance and non-parametric tests. Secondary outcomes were quality of life using EQ5D questionnaire, estimated blood loss, pelvic infection, pain level, hospital stay, and acceptability of intervention and relative risk as the effect size.
resultsFinally, 168 patients were included in this study. The composite complication rate among medical abortion patients is significantly more than that of surgical abortion patients (39.3% vs. 4.76%). The relative risk calculated 8.25 (3.05-22.26 CI). Medical abortion patients have experienced higher levels of ongoing bleeding, pain, and symptoms of pelvic infection. The higher level of acceptance has been reported by surgical group patients in comparison to the medical group patients (85.7% vs. 59.5%). Quality of life scores for surgical and medical group estimated 0.6605 and 0.5419, respectively.
conclusionSurgical method of abortion using D and C is a very safe and highly successful option in comparison to the medical method using misoprostol alone and is associated with better clinical outcomes, acceptance, and quality of life in first trimester of pregnancy among Iranian women.
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.