ArticleElectronic physician2018
Comparison of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and isosorbide dinitrate on cervical preparation and labor duration of term parturient: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.
Article in Electronic physician, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Trial
- Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- The Insight into Obstetric Care near the Front Line in Kharkiv.Acta medica Lituanic · 2022Article
- Comparing the effects of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and extra amniotic saline infusion on cervical ripening and induction of labor.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2020Article
- Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical ripening plays an important role in successful labor induction.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the effects of misoprostol, laminaria tent, and isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) on cervical ripening.
methodsThis double-blind three-armed clinical trial was conducted at Shahidan Mombini Teaching Hospital in Sabzevar, Iran, in 2016 on 96 singleton term pregnant women. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two 20-mg ISDN tablets vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of three doses or 25 mcg misoprostol vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of two doses or laminaria tent for a maximum of 12 hours. The method of randomization was covariate adaptive randomization and the primary outcome measures were Bishop Score changes and labor duration. SPSS software version 18 was used for statistical analyses. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square and ANOVA tests were applied for data analyses.
resultsBishop Score changes were higher in the misoprostol group than in the two other groups (p=0.014). Time from start of medication to active phase of labor and delivery were 6.22±3.11 and 11.78±5.3 minutes in the misoprostol group, 11.25±3.07 and 17.62±4.07 minutes in the laminaria group, and 10.12±3.48 and 17.37±4.79 minutes in the ISDN group respectively (p<0.001). Cesarean rate was higher in the misoprostol group than the two other groups (p=0.016). No significant differences were observed between the study groups in terms of Apgar score and meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
conclusionsUse of misoprostol results in more improvement of Bishop Score and reduced length of labor phases in comparison to laminaria tent and ISDN.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the Irct ID: IRCT2016050527643N2 in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT2015040921670N1.
fundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
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.