ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2014
Is low dose vaginal misoprostol better than dinoprostone gel for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus oxytocin for labor induction in women with prelabor rupture of membranes: a meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Labor induction with prostaglandin EJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety profile of low dose vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone gel for induction of labor in term pregnancies.
methodsThe study was conducted at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Smt Sucheta Kriplani Hospital on 100 pregnant women with term pregnancy after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The women were randomized in 2 groups of 50 women each. Group I received misoprostol 25μg at every six hour vaginally for a maximum of five doses for induction of labor; while group II received dinoprostone gel 0.5 mg every six hourly for a maximum of three doses. Maternal outcomes such as mode of delivery and induction delivery interval; and fetal outcomes such as APGAR score and incidence of NICU admission were assessed in both the groups. Statistical analysis was done using student t-test and chi-square test.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the mean induction to delivery interval in both the groups (14.32±0.13 hours in Group I and 14.92±0.18 hours in Group II, p=0.75), mode of delivery, indication of cesarean section and perinatal outcome. However, significant difference was observed in requirement of oxytocin augmentation in both the groups (32% in Group I and 68% in Group II, p=0.005).
conclusionVaginal misoprostol in low doses is similar in efficacy and safety to dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening and labor induction in term pregnancy.
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.