ArticleCureus2023
Manual Vacuum Aspiration Versus Expectant Management for First Trimester Miscarriage: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Miscarriage is one of the common problems encountered in pregnancy. The treatment modalities are expectant, medical, and surgical management. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) with expectant management for first trimester miscarriage. Method This randomized controlled trial was conducted in Teaching Hospital Jaffna, Jaffna, Sri Lanka, and 134 eligible patients with first trimester spontaneous miscarriage were randomized to expectant management (67) and MVA (67). Those allocated to expectant management were managed expectantly for up to two weeks, and those allocated to MVA underwent aspiration under a paracervical block in the ward. The primary outcome was complete evacuation of the uterus, and the secondary outcomes were duration of bleeding, duration of pain, level of pain, need for the second procedure, cervical or uterine injuries, and patient satisfaction. Results Of the 134 eligible women, seven were lost to follow-up and 127 were analyzed. The MVA was superior in achieving complete evacuation compared to expectant management (95.2% vs. 70.3%; p ≤ 0.001). Notably, in both groups, complete evacuation was more readily achievable in incomplete miscarriage than in missed miscarriage. Duration of bleeding (mean days, 1.6 vs. 4.3; p ≤ 0.0001), duration of pain (mean days, 1.0 vs. 4.2; p ≤ 0.0001), and the need for additional surgical procedure in the form of dilatation and curettage (4.8% vs. 29.7%; p ≤ 0.001) were lower in MVA. Patient satisfaction was higher in the MVA group than in the expectant group (93.7% vs. 65.6%; p ≤ 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of blood transfusion and infection. There wasn't any incidence of cervical damage or uterine perforation. Conclusion MVA is an effective and safe treatment method for first trimester miscarriage with higher patient satisfaction.
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.