ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Management of Incomplete Abortion with Oral 600 mg Misoprostol with Manual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA).
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the first trimester, almost one in five identified pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, and another 22% result in induced abortion. After a spontaneous and/or induced abortion, there may be retained products of conception (POC). Because of its relatively poor efficacy and the unpredictability of the time interval until spontaneous evacuation, expectant treatment is not often chosen by healthcare professionals. In view of these facts, the current study's objective was to weigh the effectiveness of MVA and oral misoprostol 600 mg in managing incomplete abortion. Materials and Procedures: The investigation was conducted at the tertiary care center in India. The survey was conducted for one year. Subjects were selected from those attending the department for either spontaneous or induced abortions. A total of 230 women were randomly assigned to receive the interventions of a single dose of oral misoprostol 600 mcg or MVA. They were equally distributed to two groups and observed for the various parameters of success, signs and symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. The obtained values were compared statistically for the significance at <0.05 of Results: Of the 200 subjects (30 lost to follow-up), there was no significant variance in the demographics, clinical outcomes, and complications between the groups. However, the pain, fever, shivering, and satisfaction parameters were statistically variant between the groups. Fever, shivering, and pain were lower for the MISO subjects while satisfaction was reported higher from subjects in MISO group. Conclusion: MISO and MVA are acceptable, safe, and efficient therapies for first-trimester un-complicated incomplete abortion. Nonetheless, misoprostol appears to be a marginally superior option to MVA in terms of accessibility, low therapy costs, reduced pain, and reduced demand for specialized personnel or equipment.
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.