Comparison of Oral Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Legal Abortion in Iranian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Considering the different available results on effectiveness of various doses of misoprostol and different methods of administration, as well as legal issues of abortion in Iran, the aim of this study was to compare oral and vaginal misoprostol for legal abortion in pregnant women. Methods: This randomized double-blind clinical trial study was performed on 70 pregnant women applying for abortion referring to Besat Hospital in Sanandaj in 2014 - 2015. Pregnant women were divided randomly into two oral misoprostol and vaginal misoprostol groups by simple sampling. In both groups, misoprostol 200 μg every 6 hours up to six times (36 hours) was used. To make the study double-blind, placebo was used. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire. The effectiveness of misoprostol (the excretion of gestation products) and its side effects (bleeding, fever, etc.) were studied in two groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS Ver.18 software, t -test, Chi-square test and Fisher exact test. Results: The results showed that there were no significant differences statistically between oral (82.3%) and vaginal (80%) misoprostol groups in terms of response to treatment (the excretion of gestation products). Although in our study, the need for curettage in the vaginal group (42.8) was higher than oral group (34.3), the difference was not statistically significant. Intervals of consuming oral misoprostol pills to the excretion of gestation products in the oral and vaginal groups were 4.09 ± 1.56 and 3.67 ± 1.4 hours, respectively (P > 0.05). In terms of complications, only two cases of oral misoprostol group experienced complications. Conclusions: Although the risk of complications in oral method and the need for curettage in vaginal group is high, effectiveness of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of legal abortion is similar. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2016;5(2):59-63 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo406e
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".