ReviewGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2015
Misoprostol for Labour Induction after Previous Caesarean Section - Forever a "No Go"?
Review in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2015. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Methods for the Induction of Labour After Previous Caesarean Section - An Updated, Evidence-based Review.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Heterogenous use of misoprostol for induction of labour: results of an online survey among midwives in German-speaking countries.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Labour Induction with Misoprostol in German Obstetric Clinics: What Are the Facts on Such Use?Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2021Article
- Misoprostol-augmented induction of labour for third trimester fetal demise in a patient with prior hysterotomies.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- Letrozole vs. Placebo Pretreatment in the Medical Management of First Trimester Missed Miscarriage: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2018Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misoprostol in oral or vaginal form is an established method of labour induction worldwide. Its use after previous caesarean section is associated with a high rate of uterine rupture; according to international guidelines it is therefore contraindicated in this setting. However the evidence base for this recommendation comprises case reports, one randomised trial that was discontinued prematurely, and numerous low quality retrospective data analyses published between 1997 and 2004. New insights into e.g. resorption kinetics, dosage and application intervals, dose dependant uterine hyperstimulation rates, as well as increasing clinical experience with misoprostol have lead to a critical reappraisal of these "historical" studies. Accordingly the evidence supporting a ban on vaginal and particularly oral misoprostol for labour induction in the context of a scarred uterus is currently insufficient for a convincing guideline recommendation. In view of the clear advantages of misoprostol over prostaglandin E
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.