Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
Safety and effectiveness of oral misoprostol for induction of labour in a resource-limited setting: a dose escalation study.
Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- A pilot study to compare propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol and placebo for induction of labor in primigravidae; a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
- Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Trial
- Congenital abnormalities in Pacific Island Countries and Territories: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Article
- The Impact of Maternal BMI on the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of methods of preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in Poland and in Germany (Part II): maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Article
- Induction of Labour among Pregnant Women in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a Tertiary Care Centre.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Induction of labour in low- and middle-income countries: Challenges and measures to improve outcomes.Case reports in women's health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral misoprostol as an induction of labour (IOL) agent is rapidly gaining popularity in resource-limited settings because it is cheap, stable at ambient temperatures, and logistically easier to administer compared to dinoprostone and oxytocin. We aim to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a regimen of oral misoprostol in Papua New Guinean women undergoing IOL.
methodsAs part of a prospective dose escalation study conducted at Modilon Hospital in Papua New Guinea, women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation and an unfavourable cervix who gave written informed consent were administered oral misoprostol, commencing at 25mcg once every 2 h for 4 doses and increased to 50mcg once every 2 h for 8 doses within 24 h. The primary outcomes studied were i) the proportion of women delivering within 24 h of oral misoprostol administration, and ii) rates of maternal and perinatal severe adverse events.
resultsOf 6167 labour ward screened admissions, 209 women (3%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and underwent IOL. Overall, 74% (155/209 [95% confidence interval 67.6-79.9]) delivered within 24 h. Most women (90%; 188/209; 95% CI [84.9-93.5]) delivered vaginally with 86% (180/209) having a good outcome for both the mother and baby. Of the 10% (21/209) who failed IOL and underwent caesarean section, a significant proportion of their babies were admitted to special-care nursery compared to babies delivered vaginally (20/21 [95%] versus 8/188 [4%]; Fisher Exact test P < 0.001), but their perinatal mortality rate was not significantly higher (1/21 [5%] versus 2/188 [1%]; P = 0.30). The only maternal death was not study related and occurred in a patient with post-partum haemorrhage, 15 h post-delivery.
conclusionThe oral misoprostol regimen for IOL described in the present study is safe, effective and logistically feasible to administer in a resource-limited setting.
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.