ReviewInternational journal of women's health2015
A critical appraisal of the misoprostol removable, controlled-release vaginal delivery system of labor induction.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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
- Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Trial
- Is Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Safe for the Induction of Labor in High-Risk Pregnancy Obese Women?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labor is a major issue in pregnancy management. Finding strategies to increase rate and decrease time to vaginal delivery is an important goal, but maternal or neonatal safety must remain the primary objective. Misoprostol is a synthetic analogue of prostaglandin used off label to ripen the cervix and induce labor. The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was designed to allow a controlled-release delivery of misoprostol (from 50 to 200 μg) with a removal tape. The objective of this review was to make a critical appraisal of this device referring to the literature.
methodsA literature search was performed in the PubMed and Cochrane databases using the keywords "vaginal misoprostol insert".
resultsSeveral studies compared different doses of MVI (50, 100, 150, and 200 μg) with the 10 mg dinoprostone insert. The 100 μg MVI compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI) showed similar efficacy and no significant differences in cesarean delivery rate. MVI 200 μg compared with DVI showed a reduced time to vaginal delivery and oxytocin need but had an increased risk of uterine hyperstimulation. The rate of hyperstimulation syndrome was two to three times more frequent with the 200 μg MVI than the 100 μg.
conclusionCurrent data suggest that the 100 μg MVI would provide the best balance between efficacy and safety. Further studies should be performed to evaluate this dose, especially in high-risk situations needing induction of labor.
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.