Demetroulis 2001.

Methods	Randomisation by opening sealed opaque envelope containing computer‐generated allocation code number. No attempt at masking given the manifest differences between medical and surgical interventions. Newham General Hospital; no information on study duration.
Participants	80 women with incomplete miscarriage or anembryonic pregnancy or missed miscarriage < 13 weeks, diagnosed by ultrasound. The data in this review are derived only from the subgroup with non‐viable pregnancies (n = 50) and not those with incomplete miscarriages. Women were reviewed 8‐10 hours after medical treatment; if they had empty uteruses on ultrasound examination they were discharged home; if not, surgical evacuation was arranged.
Interventions	Vaginal misoprostol 800 mcg once only (n = 26) vs surgical evacuation of the uterus (n = 24).
Outcomes	Need for surgical evacuation, symptoms including pain and bleeding, 'satisfaction'.
Funding	No information on funding.
Declarations of interest	No information on conflicts of interest.
Notes	Authors contacted for information on outcomes according to indication for treatment. Only usable data currently available are on incidence of surgical evacuation.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: computer‐generated numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: use of sealed opaque envelopes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no missing data, it seems that all patients completed the study.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: no signs of selective reporting. 94 patients were counselled, 14 declined study participation and chose surgical evacuation. All outcome measures mentioned in the methods section were reported in the results section.
Other bias	Low risk	No other source of bias could be detected
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "No attempt was made to conceal the intervention assignment schedule from the patients or clinicians as the treatment methods for the study and control were obviously different (...) No attempt was made to mask the intervention as the study compared a medical treatment with a surgical procedure". Comment: this might have influenced (perception of) outcome.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: not performed. Quote: "No attempt was made to mask the intervention as the study compared a medical treatment with a surgical procedure".