Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 1995
Is misoprostol the drug of choice for induced cervical ripening in early pregnancy termination?
Клиническое исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Platz-Christensen J J, Nielsen S, Hamberger L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To study the effectiveness of three different cervical ripening agents in terms of dilatation ability and patient discomfort in connection with legal first trimester abortion.
METHODS: Three randomized trials among unselected nulliparous women were performed 1: hygroscopic tent versus gemeprost, 2: misoprostol versus gemeprost and 3: misoprostol administered orally 17 versus 10 hours before vacuum curettage was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES: Dilatation ability, frequent gastrointestinal side effects, severe pain (patients' perception).
RESULTS: In Trial 1, there was a tendency of a greater dilatation ability using the hygroscopic tent, while the experience of pain was a greater problem with gemeprost. In Trials 2 and 3, there were no significant differences in the dilatation abilities or gastrointestinal patient discomfort. There was a tendency towards a higher demand for narcotic analgesics in patients treated with gemeprost compared with all other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Gemeprost and misoprostol showed almost identical ability to dilate and caused patient-experienced discomfort to the same degree. The use of misoprostol may be preferred as it has the advantage of being both less expensive and easier to administer.
METHODS: Three randomized trials among unselected nulliparous women were performed 1: hygroscopic tent versus gemeprost, 2: misoprostol versus gemeprost and 3: misoprostol administered orally 17 versus 10 hours before vacuum curettage was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES: Dilatation ability, frequent gastrointestinal side effects, severe pain (patients' perception).
RESULTS: In Trial 1, there was a tendency of a greater dilatation ability using the hygroscopic tent, while the experience of pain was a greater problem with gemeprost. In Trials 2 and 3, there were no significant differences in the dilatation abilities or gastrointestinal patient discomfort. There was a tendency towards a higher demand for narcotic analgesics in patients treated with gemeprost compared with all other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Gemeprost and misoprostol showed almost identical ability to dilate and caused patient-experienced discomfort to the same degree. The use of misoprostol may be preferred as it has the advantage of being both less expensive and easier to administer.