ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2014
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misoprostol for labor induction: an alternative to dinoprostone? A retrospective observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Article
- Sublingual Misoprostol (PGE1) Versus Intracervical Dinoprostone (PGE2) Gel for Induction of Labour: A Randomized Control Trail.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2016Article
- Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women. STUDY
designAdmissions for labor induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes.
resultA total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P<0.0001) and were more likely to deliver vaginally in <24 h (47% vs 64%, P=0.001). There was no increase in the rate of cesarean delivery or adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
conclusionLabor induction with oral misoprostol resulted in shorter time to vaginal delivery without increased adverse outcomes in nulliparous women.
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.