Kushwah 2009.

Methods	Parallel group randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups by computer‐generated numbers. The study was conducted from April 2003 to March 2004 with 100 women attending the prenatal clinic of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, Delhi, India. All had early pregnancy failure confirmed by ultrasound between the 7th and 14th week.
Participants	The inclusion criteria were (1) a gestational sac of 25 mm in mean diameter or larger with no embryo present (an anembryonic pregnancy) or (2) the presence of a fetal pole without cardiac pulsations (a missed abortion).
Interventions	Group 1: 200 mg mifepristone + 600 mcg misoprostol sublingually; with up to 3 supplemental doses of 400 mcg after 12, 15 and 18 hours (if 4 hours after last dose still no expulsion: surgical evacuation) (n = 50). Group 2: 200 mg mifepristone + 600 mcg misoprostol orally; with up to 3 supplemental doses of 400 mcg after 12, 15 and 18 hours (if 4 hours after last dose still no expulsion: surgical evacuation) (n = 50).
Outcomes	The primary outcome was the mean induction‐to‐evacuation interval, defined as the time between when the first dose of misoprostol was taken and the time when the POC were expelled. The secondary outcome was the incidence of the 5 following adverse effects: blood loss, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and fever. Regimen acceptability was defined as whether it would be accepted again, if needed.
Funding	No information on funding.
Declarations of interest	No information on conflicts of interest.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patients were then randomly assigned to one of 2 groups by computer generated numbers".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no adequate description of the concealment process
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: for all 100 patients outcomes were presented.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: outcome measures that were mentioned in the methods section were presented 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	Comment: due to the nature of the intervention blinding would be difficult; the only way for blinding both participants and personnel would be to give group A oral misoprostol and sublingual placebo and group B oral placebo and sublingual misoprostol. The article does not state that placebos were used. This might particularly have influenced patients experiences that were assessed as secondary outcomes.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: no information on blinding of outcome assessment, probably not done.