File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/humrep/dei196
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-27944495262
- PMID: 16037110
- WOS: WOS:000233045700014
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: A prospective randomized comparison of sublingual and oral misoprostol when combined with mifepristone for medical abortion at 12-20 weeks gestation
Title | A prospective randomized comparison of sublingual and oral misoprostol when combined with mifepristone for medical abortion at 12-20 weeks gestation |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Abortion Misoprostol Oral Second trimester Sublingual |
Issue Date | 2005 |
Publisher | Oxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/ |
Citation | Human Reproduction, 2005, v. 20 n. 11, p. 3062-3066 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: Sublingual misoprostol has been shown to be effective in medical abortion. A prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled trial was done to compare the efficacy and side-effects of sublingual to oral misoprostol when used with mifepristone for medical abortion from 12 to 20 weeks gestation. Methods: A total of 120 women at 12-20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive 200 mg oral mifepristone followed by either sublingual or oral misoprostol 400 mg every 3 h for a maximum of five doses 36-48 h later. The course of misoprostol was repeated if the woman did not abort within 24 h. Results: There was no significant difference (P = 0.43) in the success rate at 24 h [relative risk = 1.075; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-1.19]. Abortion occurred in 91.4% in the sublingual group (95% CI: 81.0-96.7%) as compared to 85.0% (95% CI: 73.7-92.1%) in the oral group. The median induction-to-abortion interval was significantly shorter (P = 0.009) in the sublingual group (5.5 h) as compared to the oral group (7.5 h). The incidence of fever was higher in the sublingual group (P < 0.0001). The incidences of other side-effects were similar. Conclusion: Sublingual misoprostol, when combined with mifepristone, is effective for medical abortion in the second trimester. The induction-to-abortion interval is shorter when sublingual misoprostol is used when compared to oral misoprostol. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173295 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 6.0 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.852 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Tang, OS | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chan, CCW | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kan, ASY | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ho, PC | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-10-30T06:29:09Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-10-30T06:29:09Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Human Reproduction, 2005, v. 20 n. 11, p. 3062-3066 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0268-1161 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173295 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Sublingual misoprostol has been shown to be effective in medical abortion. A prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled trial was done to compare the efficacy and side-effects of sublingual to oral misoprostol when used with mifepristone for medical abortion from 12 to 20 weeks gestation. Methods: A total of 120 women at 12-20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive 200 mg oral mifepristone followed by either sublingual or oral misoprostol 400 mg every 3 h for a maximum of five doses 36-48 h later. The course of misoprostol was repeated if the woman did not abort within 24 h. Results: There was no significant difference (P = 0.43) in the success rate at 24 h [relative risk = 1.075; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-1.19]. Abortion occurred in 91.4% in the sublingual group (95% CI: 81.0-96.7%) as compared to 85.0% (95% CI: 73.7-92.1%) in the oral group. The median induction-to-abortion interval was significantly shorter (P = 0.009) in the sublingual group (5.5 h) as compared to the oral group (7.5 h). The incidence of fever was higher in the sublingual group (P < 0.0001). The incidences of other side-effects were similar. Conclusion: Sublingual misoprostol, when combined with mifepristone, is effective for medical abortion in the second trimester. The induction-to-abortion interval is shorter when sublingual misoprostol is used when compared to oral misoprostol. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Oxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/ | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Human Reproduction | en_US |
dc.rights | Human Reproduction. Copyright © Oxford University Press. | - |
dc.subject | Abortion | - |
dc.subject | Misoprostol | - |
dc.subject | Oral | - |
dc.subject | Second trimester | - |
dc.subject | Sublingual | - |
dc.subject.mesh | Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal - Administration & Dosage | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Abortion, Induced - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Administration, Oral | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Administration, Sublingual | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Adult | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Double-Blind Method | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Therapy, Combination | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Mifepristone - Administration & Dosage | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Misoprostol - Administration & Dosage - Adverse Effects | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Pregnancy | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Pregnancy Trimester, Second | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Prospective Studies | en_US |
dc.title | A prospective randomized comparison of sublingual and oral misoprostol when combined with mifepristone for medical abortion at 12-20 weeks gestation | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Ho, PC:pcho@hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Ho, PC=rp00325 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_OA_fulltext | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/humrep/dei196 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 16037110 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-27944495262 | en_US |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 119039 | - |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-27944495262&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 20 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 11 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 3062 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 3066 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000233045700014 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tang, OS=7006723402 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Chan, CCW=26643394500 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Kan, ASY=8574836200 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Ho, PC=7402211440 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citeulike | 368728 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0268-1161 | - |