Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006
Oral misoprostol for induction of labour at term: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral misoprostol (PGE1) vs vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for labor induction: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Pooled it
- Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Misoprostol as Oral Solution or Oral Tablet for Induction of Labour (MISOBEST): A Randomised Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- The Safety of Two Different Oral Misoprostol Dosing Strategies for Labor Preinduction at Term: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol - Effectiveness and Safety of Low-dose vs. High-dose Regimens.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2017Article
- Safety and effectiveness of oral misoprostol for induction of labour in a resource-limited setting: a dose escalation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Observational
- Oral Misoprostol Solution for Induction of Labour.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2017Article
- Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2014Article
- Listen to the data when results are not significant.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2008Article
- Oral Misoprostol for the Induction of Labor: Comparison of Different Dosage Schemes With Respect to Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Patients Beyond 34 Weeks of Pregnancy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare oral misoprostol solution with vaginal prostaglandin gel (dinoprostone) for induction of labour at term to determine whether misoprostol is superior.
designRandomised double blind placebo controlled trial.
settingMaternity departments in three hospitals in Australia. Population Pregnant women with a singleton cephalic presentation at > or = 36+6 weeks' gestation, with an indication for prostaglandin induction of labour.
interventions20 mug oral misoprostol solution at ourly intervals and placebo vaginal gel or vaginal dinoprostone gel at six hourly intervals and placebo oral solution.
main outcome measuresVaginal birth within 24 hours; uterine hyperstimulation with associated changes in fetal heart rate; caesarean section (all); and caesarean section for fetal distress.
results741 women were randomised, 365 to the misoprostol group and 376 to the vaginal dinoprostone group. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the primary outcomes: vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours (misoprostol 168/365 (46.0%) v dinoprostone 155/376 (41.2%); relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.32; P = 0.134), caesarean section (83/365 (22.7%) v 100/376 (26.6%); 0.82, 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.127), caesarean section for fetal distress (32/365 (8.8%) v 35/376 (9.3%); 0.91, 0.57 to 1.44; P = 0.679), or uterine hyperstimulation with changes in fetal heart rate (3/365 (0.8%) v 6/376 (1.6%); 0.55, 0.14 to 2.21; P = 0.401). Although there were differences in the process of labour induction, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
conclusionsThis trial shows no evidence that oral misoprostol is superior to vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labour. However, it does not lead to poorer health outcomes for women or their infants, and oral treatment is preferred by women.
trial registrationNational Health and Medical Research Council, Perinatal Trials, PT0361.
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.