ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2016
Induction of Labor in Post-Term Nulliparous and Parous Women - Potential Advantages of Misoprostol over Dinoprostone.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of Premature Rupture of Membranes on Induction of Labor: A Historical Cohort Study.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2017Article
- Induction of Labor using Misoprostol in a Tertiary Hospital in the Southeast of Brazil.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe undertook a prospective cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of 50 µg misoprostol versus 3 mg dinoprostone in two vaginal doses 6 hours apart, followed if necessary by oxytocin for labor induction in low-risk post-term (> 40 weeks) pregnancies with unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6).
methodsLabor induction and subsequent management were conducted using a standardized protocol. The primary outcome of the study was labor induction rate. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, time interval from induction to delivery, maternal complications and neonatal outcome.
results107 patients received misoprostol (Group A) and 99 patients received dinoprostone (Group B). Compared with group A, more women in Group B needed a second vaginal dose of prostaglandin or oxytocin infusion in order to proceed to labor (21.5 vs. 43.4 %; p = 0.01). Misoprostol alone as a single or double vaginal dose was more effective than dinoprostone alone in inducing labor without oxytocin administration (85.0 vs. 50.4 %; p = 0.04). Overall, the rate of successful induction of labor did not differ between groups (91.6 vs. 85.8 %; p = 0.75). Vaginal delivery, operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section rates were not significantly different. Time interval from induction to delivery however, was shorter for Group A (median 11 hours vs. 14.1 hours; p < 0.001). Though emergency Caesarean section due to fetal distress was more frequent in Group A (16.8 vs. 4.0 %; p = 0.007), low Apgar scores < 7 and NICU admissions did not differ significantly. Maternal complications, mostly not serious, were higher in Group A (31.8 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001).
conclusionMisoprostol is a more effective agent than dinoprost in post-term pregnancy for labor induction with few maternal adverse effects.
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.