ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Induction of labour in nulliparous women- quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02693587 (Misodel or Angusta for Induction of Labour? - a Medical Health Technology Assessment), which is not on this 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.
Misodel or Angusta for Induction of Labour? - a Medical Health Technology Assessment
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misoprostol as Oral Solution or Oral Tablet for Induction of Labour (MISOBEST): A Randomised Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- The Safety of Two Different Oral Misoprostol Dosing Strategies for Labor Preinduction at Term: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Factors of Non-Compliance with a Protocol for Oral Administration of Misoprostol (AngustaJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of maternal age and body mass index on induction of labor with oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membrane at term: A retrospective cross-sectional study.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2023Article
- Synthesis, evaluation of drug delivery potential, and the quantum chemical investigation on a molecular imprinted polymer for quetiapine antipsychotic; a joint experimental and density functional theory study.Frontiers in chemistry · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was undertaken with the objective of comparing efficacy and safety for two different regimens using misoprostol for induction of labour.
methodsThe study was set in two different hospitals in the region of Zeeland, Denmark, and designed as a prospective cohort study. Nulliparous women with unripe cervix, eligible for vaginal delivery and medical induction of labour were included. Exclusion criteria were a previous uterine scar, suspicion of growth restriction of the fetus and prelabour rupture of membranes. One department used 25 mcg oral misoprostol tablets and the other department used 200 mcg slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert, for induction of labour. Primary outcomes were predefined as frequency of cesarean section, tachysystole and delivery within 24 h. Secondary outcomes were: time from induction to delivery, use of additional methods for induction, postpartum hemorrhage, anal sphincter rupture, epidural, pyrexia (rectal temperature > 38.5 °C), prolonged rupture of membranes, and use of tocolysis.
resultsNo significant differences in women achieving vaginal delivery was found. However, a significantly increased risk of tachysystole for the vaginal administration route was observed; 28.4% compared with 2.3%. There were no events of serious neonatal asphyxia. Half of the women induced with vaginal insert delivered within 24 h, compared with 16.8% of the women induced with oral misoprostol.
conclusionsInduction with vaginal slow-release misoprostol leads to quicker delivery with an increased risk of tachysystole but with similar perinatal outcomes and rates of cesarean sections. Low-dose oral misoprostol appears to be safe, however it leads to an increased use of secondary methods and a tendency of more intrapartum pyrexia.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02693587 on February 262,016. EudraCT number 2020-000366-42 on 23 January 2020, retrospectively registered.
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.