Trial reportReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2004
Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study.
Trial report in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Reducing stillbirths: interventions during labour.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2009Pooled it
- Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- The Impact of Maternal Obesity on the Duration of Labor Stages in Dinoprostone-Induced Vaginal Delivery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Results of Induction of Labor with Prostaglandins E1 and E2 (The RIPE Study): A Real-World Data Analysis of Obstetrical Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Pharmacological Induction of Labor with Vaginal Inserts.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Health Related Quality of Life Post Labour Induction with Misoprostol Versus Dinoprostone At Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: A cross Sectional Study.The East African health research journal · 2020Article
- Induction of Labor in Primigravid Term Pregnancy with Misoprostol or Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study.Cureus · 2019Article
- Induction of Labor in Post-Term Nulliparous and Parous Women - Potential Advantages of Misoprostol over Dinoprostone.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2016Article
- Is low dose vaginal misoprostol better than dinoprostone gel for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
- Shortening the induction delivery interval with prostaglandins: a randomized controlled trial of solo or in combination.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation. MATERIAL AND
methodsOne hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome.
resultsThe induction-delivery interval was significantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone.
conclusionsVaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.