Impact of medical, surgical and expectant management on spontaneous miscarriage/abortion on first trimester: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-07 · read from full text

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of medical, surgical, and expectant management strategies on spontaneous miscarriage or abortion rates during the first trimester. The authors synthesized data from randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and outcomes associated with each intervention approach. Key findings indicated that while all methods are viable options, specific clinical factors influence the selection of management type, though the analysis focused primarily on pregnancy loss rather than structural uterine pathology. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one indication for GnRH antagonists, though the paper's main focus is uterine fibroids.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

An increase in miscarriage in the first trimester of gestation and its associated complications is burdensome on the quality of life of a woman. Medical, surgical, and expectant care are carried out after the miscarriage to remove any remaining tissues in the uterus. Understanding the efficacy and safety of these interventions will raise awareness and be a deciding factor in choosing an appropriate treatment plan. The present review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of medical, surgical, and expectant care of various medical and surgical methods for first-trimester miscarriage. This review included studies that allocated women to medical, surgical, or expectant management in the first trimester. PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase Library were searched for the literature. The primary outcome was the complete evacuation of products of conception. Data were independently reviewed, graded for evidence quality, and assessed for risk of bias by using the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Report Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis). Twenty-one eligible articles were included in this systematic review, comprising 7,931 patients undergoing medical, surgical, or expectant management for early spontaneous miscarriage. The success rate in surgical intervention was higher when compared with medical intervention (OR: 16.12 [9.11, 28.52]) and expectant management (OR: 2.78 [2.13, 3.61]). Whereas medical intervention had a higher success rate when compared with expectant management (OR: 4.29 [2.31, 7.97]). The review determines the effect of medical, surgical, and expectant management procedures on women who have had spontaneous miscarriages in their first trimester. PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews–CRD42020154395.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00