ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020
A Relative Bioavailability Study of Two Misoprostol Formulations Following a Single Oral or Sublingual Administration.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
A Comparative, Open-label, Parallel Design, Bioavailability Study of Two Misoprostol Formulations (Angusta™ 25 µg Dispersible Tablets vs. Cytotec® 200 µg Tablets) Following Single Oral or Sublingual Administration and Comparison of Safety of the Two Formulations Following Repeat Dosing Until Labour
Orally Administered Misoprostol Solution (Cytotec®) Versus Orally Administered Misoprostol as a Tablet (Angusta®) for Induction of Labor in Women With Mixed Parity and an Unfavorable Cervix, a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
- Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term.Clinical and translational science · 2022Trial
- Misoprostol for labor induction: an alternative to dinoprostone? A retrospective observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol - Effectiveness and Safety of Low-dose vs. High-dose Regimens.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Safety and Effectiveness of Labor Induction With 25 μg Versus 50 μg of Oral Misoprostol in Women With Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Spanlastic Nano-Vesicles: A Novel Approach to Improve the Dissolution, Bioavailability, and Pharmacokinetic Behavior of Famotidine.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMisoprostol (Cytotec) was primarily made for treating gastric ulcers. However today it is mostly used for abortion, treating postpartum hemorrhage, and for induction of labor. The tablet contains 200 µg of misoprostol, yet the dosages used for induction of labor are much smaller (25-50 µg), leading to uncertainty of dosage in daily use.
aimTo evaluate and compare the relative bioavailability of two misoprostol products (Angusta 25 µg and Cytotec 200 µg tablets) administered orally or sublingually given in a daily clinical setting to women admitted for induction of labor at term.
methodsWomen carrying a live, singleton fetus in a cephalic position and with a gestational age between 259 and 296 days were included. Blood samples were collected at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. A serum analytical assay was performed and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Patients were assigned to one of three groups.
resultsA total of 72 patients were included. No significant differences demographic characteristics were found. The ratios for AUC, AUC (
conclusionThe relative bioavailability between Angusta and Cytotec could not be confirmed as being equal at the 25 µg or 50 µg level because the 90% CI-values when comparing the ratios for AUC, AUC CLINICAL
trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02516631.
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.