Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2019
Clinical experience with misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor: a prospective clinical observational study.
Observational study in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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
- Results of Induction of Labor with Prostaglandins E1 and E2 (The RIPE Study): A Real-World Data Analysis of Obstetrical Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Pharmacological Induction of Labor with Vaginal Inserts.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Induction of Labor at Term with Oral Misoprostol or as a Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert - A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Induction of labour in nulliparous women- quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Comparison of Misoprostol for Labor Induction: Vaginal InsertIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide real-world evidence using misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) for induction of labor in nulliparous and parous women at two German Level I Centers in a prospective observational study.
methodsBetween 1 August 2014 and 1 October 2015, eligible pregnant women (≥ 36 + 0 weeks of gestation) requiring labor induction were treated with MVI. Endpoints included time to and mode of delivery rates of tocolysis use, tachysystole, uterine hypertonus or uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and newborn outcomes.
resultsOf the 354 women enrolled, 68.9% (244/354) achieved vaginal delivery (nulliparous, 139/232 [59.9%]; parous 105/122 [86.1%]; p < 0.001). Median time from MVI administration to vaginal delivery was 14.0 h (nulliparous, 14.5 h; parous, 11.9 h; p < 0.001). A total of 205/244 (84.0%) and 228/244 (93.4%) women achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 h and 30 h, respectively. The most common indications for cesarean delivery were pathologic cardiotocography (nulliparous, 41/232 [17.4%]; parous, 13/122 [10.7%]; p = 0.081) and arrested labor (dilation or descent; nulliparous, 45/232 [19.4%], parous, 3/122 [2.5%]; p ≤ 0.001). A total of 24.3% of women experienced uterine tachysystole and 9.6% experienced uterine tachysystole with fetal heart rate involvement, neither of which were significantly different for nulliparous and parous women. In total, 42/345 (12.2%) of the neonates had an arterial pH < 7.15 and 12/345 3.5% had a 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7.
conclusionWhen clinically indicated, MVI was efficient and safe for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix. Women, however, should be counseled regarding the risk of uterine tachysystole prior to labor induction with MVI.
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.