ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2016
Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 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
- 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
- Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021Trial
- The Bishop Index and Birth Outcomes in Nulliparous Women Undergoing Labor Induction: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Labor induction with prostaglandin EJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Efficacy and safety of administering oral misoprostol by titration compared to vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate effectiveness and safety of titrated oral misoprostol solution (OMS) in comparison with vaginal dinoprostone for cervix ripening and labor induction in term pregnant women.
methodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial of women with term singleton pregnancy with indications for labor induction; 481 participants were allocated to receive titrated OMS with different doses by hourly administration according to the procedure or insert vaginal dinoprostone for cervix ripening and labor induction to compare maternal outcomes including indication of labor induction, mode of outcome of delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal outcomes between two groups for evaluating the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol induction.
resultProportion of delivery within 12 h of titrated oral misoprostol is significantly less than vaginal dinoprostone (p = 0.03), but no difference of total vaginal delivery rate (p = 0.93); the mean time of first treatment to vaginal delivery was longer in OMS group (21.3 ± 14.5 h) compared with the vaginal dinoprostone group (15.7 ± 9.6 h). Although the proportion of cesarean section between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference, OMS group showed significantly lower frequency of uterine hyperstimulation, hypertonus, partus precipitatus and non-reassuring fetal heart rate than dinoprostone group. Neonatal outcomes were similar evaluating from Apgar score and NICU admission. Our study also showed that labor induction of women with cervix Bishop score ≤3 needed increased dosage of misoprostol solution.
conclusionTitrated OMS is as effective as vaginal dinoprostone in labor induction for term pregnant women, with safer effect for its lower rate of adverse effect for 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.