ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2018
Prospective Comparative Study of Oral Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Second-Trimester Termination of Pregnancy.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious medical methods for second-trimester medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) exist. Misoprostol alone has been used with myriad variations in route and dosage. Comparison between oral and vaginal routes of misoprostol forms the basis of this study.
methodsThis was a prospective comparative study of misoprostol for second-trimester (14-20 weeks) MTP, comparing oral versus vaginal routes. Sixty patients were randomly allotted to two groups; 30 received oral misoprostol 400 µg 4 h up to a maximum of five doses (2000 µg), and 30 received vaginal misoprostol in the same dose and duration. In both groups, oxytocin infusion was started if abortion did not occur. Efficacy of oral versus vaginal misoprostol, induction-abortion interval (AI) and need for surgical intervention were analyzed.
resultsBoth groups were well matched in terms of age, parity, previous LSCS, mean gestational age and indication for MTP. Overall mean induction-abortion interval was 19.59 h (21.66 vs. 18.57 h, oral vs. vaginal, respectively), with vaginal group taking lesser time (
conclusionsThough both oral and vaginal misoprostol are safe, vaginal route appears to be more efficacious for second-trimester MTP.
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.