ArticleBioMed research international2017
Labor Induction with Orally Administrated Misoprostol: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Factors of Non-Compliance with a Protocol for Oral Administration of Misoprostol (AngustaJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOne great challenge in obstetric care is labor inductions. Misoprostol has advantages in being cheap and stable at room temperature and available in resource-poor settings. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospective cohort study of 4002 singleton pregnancies with a gestational age ≥34 w at Sodersjukhuset, Stockholm, during 2009-2010 and 2012-2013. Previously used methods of labor induction were compared with misoprostol given as a solution to drink, every second hour. Main outcome is as follows: Cesarean Section (CS) rate, acid-base status in cord blood, Apgar score < 7,5', active time of labor, and blood loss > 1500 ml (PPH).
resultsThe proportion of CS decreased from 26% to 17% when orally given solution of misoprostol was introduced at the clinic (
conclusionInduction of labor with misoprostol, given as an oral solution to drink every second hour, gives a low rate of CS, without affecting maternal or fetal outcome.
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.