ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2016
Sublingual Misoprostol (PGE1) Versus Intracervical Dinoprostone (PGE2) Gel for Induction of Labour: A Randomized Control Trail.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Trial
- Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstaglandins are popular agents for induction of labour, owing to their dual action of cervical ripening and inducing uterine contractions. Sublingual misoprostol offers high efficacy as it bypasses first-pass metabolism. Researchers have proved that intracervical PGE1 is as effective as PGE2 except for increased caesarean rate and hyperstimulation. Limited knowledge is available on the efficacy of sublingual PGE1 and intracervical PGE2. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of sublingual PGE1 with intracervical PGE2.
methodsA randomized control trial was conducted in Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore. One hundred and ninety women with singleton, term pregnancy were equally divided into PGE1 and PGE2 groups, and primary outcome was measured.
resultsPost-induction mean Bishop's score in PGE1 group was statistically significant (t = 6.57, p < 0.05). Failed induction rate (1 vs 13.6 %) and need for augmentation (46.3 vs 62.1 %) were lower with PGE1 than those with PGE2 (p < 0.05). Significant (p < 0.05) maternal and foetal outcomes like higher rate of NVD (35.8 vs 26 %), lower LSCS rate (15.8 vs 32.6 %), lower incidence of foetal complications (7.3 vs 21 %) were noted with PGE1. APGAR scores at 1 and 5 min were not significant. Mean cost of induction with PGE1 was 12.55+/4.15 INR and with PGE2 470.65+/126.5.
conclusionSublingual PGE1 is a better cervical ripening agent, faster and more effective, with a shorter induction-to-delivery interval as compared to intracervical PGE2. We also noted lower incidence of caesarean section and foetal distress with sublingual PGE1 compared to oral or vaginally administered PGE1.
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.