ArticleHealth science reports2025
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.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of medical and surgical management for missed miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The development of prostaglandins and antiprogestins revolutionized medical abortion by providing effective nonsurgical options for terminating pregnancy. Although both strategies are accepted in practice, variations in clinical efficacy, patient experiences, and associated costs significantly influence their overall effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of hospital- and clinic-based misoprostol administration (as a medical intervention) compared to dilation and curettage (D&C) as a surgical intervention for early pregnancy termination in Iran. Methods: This cost-effectiveness study was conducted based on clinical data from a self-designed quasi-experimental research study in three Iranian hospitals, spanning from August 1, 2021 to March 30, 2022. Participants included 168 women diagnosed with induced abortion in early pregnancy (≤ 14 weeks of gestation). We calculated costs, outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) from a societal perspective over a 14-day time horizon starting from the date of initiation of treatment. A decision tree model using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software 2022 was employed. Results: The overall societal costs of hospital-based misoprostol, D&C, and clinic-based misoprostol strategies were estimated at $135.1, $138.3, and $158.2, respectively. The QALYs for hospital-based misoprostol, clinic-based misoprostol, and D&C were estimated at 0.6891, 0.3947, and 0.6604, respectively. The ICERs of D&C and clinic-based misoprostol strategies were calculated as $109 and $79 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion: This study indicates that using misoprostol administered in hospitals for first-trimester induced abortions in Iran not only reduces societal costs but also improves quality of life compared to both D&C procedures and clinic-based misoprostol administration.
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.