Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29747591›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study.

Daniele Bolla, Saskia Vanessa Weissleder, Anda-Petronela Radan, Maria Luisa Gasparri, Luigi Raio, Martin Müller, Daniel Surbek

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Daniele BollaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. d.bolla@sro.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6780-2687
Saskia Vanessa WeisslederDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Anda-Petronela RadanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Maria Luisa GasparriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Luigi RaioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin MüllerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Daniel SurbekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Effingerstrasse 102, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor has been recently reported to be superior to dinoprostone vaginal insert in a phase III trial, but has never been compared to vaginal misoprostol in another galenic form. The aim of this study was to compare misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) with misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT) for induction of labor in term pregnancies.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study we compared 200 consecutive women induced with 200-μg misoprostol 24-h vaginal insert (Misodel®) with a historical control of 200 women induced with Misoprostol 25-μg vaginal tablets (Cytotec®) every 4-6 h. Main outcomes variables included induction-to-delivery interval, vaginal delivery within 24-h, incidence of tachysystole, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome. A subanalysis in the MVI group was performed in order to identify predictive factors for tachysistole and vaginal delivery within 24 h.

resultsThe time from induction to vaginal delivery was 1048 ± 814 min in the MVI group and 1510 ± 1043 min in the MVT group (p < 0.001). Vaginal delivery within 24-h occurred in 127 (63.5%) patients of the MVI group and in 110 (55%) patients of the MVT group (p < 0.001). Tachysystole was more common in the MVI group (36% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). However, no significant predictors of uterine tachysystole in MVI group have been identified in crude and fully adjusted logistic regression models. Bishop score was the only predictor for vaginal delivery within 24 h (p < 0.001) in MVI group. Caesarean delivery rate (27% vs. 20%) and vaginal-operative deliveries (15.5% vs. 15.5%) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups.

conclusionsMVI achieves a more vaginal delivery rate within 24 h and Tachysystole events compared to MVT. However, no differences in caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and neonatal outcomes are reported. No predictors of tachysistole after MVI administration have been identified. Bishop score and parity are the only predictors of vaginal delivery within 24 h after MVI administration.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravaginalAdultDelivery, ObstetricDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedMisoprostolOxytocicsParityPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTabletsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVaginal Creams, Foams, and JelliesDinoprostoneMisoprostolOxytocicsTabletsVaginal Creams, Foams, and JelliesCaesarean sectionInduction of labourMisoprostolMisoprostol vaginal insertMisoprostol vaginal tabletsNeonatal outcomesTachysytole

Identifiers

PMID29747591
PMCPMC5946434
OpenAlexW2805411188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.