ArticleJournal of family & reproductive health2023
Comparison of Two Different Intervals of Misoprostol Administration in Second Trimester Abortions.
Article in Journal of family & reproductive health, 2023. 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.
- Risk Factors for Failure of Second-Trimester Termination with Misoprostol as a Single Agent.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Comparison of two different intervals of misoprostol administration after mifepristone in second trimester abortions. Materials and methods: This 12-month prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care facility. Only pregnancies with congenital deformity or sterilisation failure were included in the study's recruitment of 100 women who visited the hospital for a second trimester abortion between 12 and 20 weeks; cases with scarred uteri were omitted. In a systematic random selection of 50 women in each group, the administration of 200 mg of mifepristone orally was followed by two distinct intervals of intravaginal misoprostol administration at 24- and 48-hour intervals. After 24 hours, group A women received intravaginal 400 mcg misoprostol three hourly, up to a maximum of five doses, while group B received the same doses after 48 hours. Induction abortion interval noted on various parameters and paired t test and chi square test applied. Results: The mean IAI following misoprostol administration was 8.14 2±.03 hours in group A and 7.71 ±2.56 hours in group B. This difference was statistically insignificant. Average misoprostol doses for group A were 1.68±0.71 and for the group, B were 1.68±0.84; both doses were found to be statistically insignificant when used to induce abortion. All women aborted successfully in each group. There was no significant difference in side effects in both groups. Conclusion: Based on the results it was observed that shorter interval between mifepristone and misoprostol i.e., 24 hours can be chosen to decrease the hospital stay as there was no significant difference was seen after intravaginal misoprostol in terms of induction abortion interval, number of doses and side effects.
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.