Trial reportInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2021
Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial.
Trial report in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral misoprostol (PGE1) vs vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for labor induction: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Pooled it
- Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Safety of the use of dinoprostone gel and vaginal insert for induction of labor: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Observational
- Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Factors associated with adverse obstetric events following induction of labour: a retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in Ghana.African health sciences · 2022Article
- Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for Induction of Labor in Women with Low-Risk Pregnancies: A Prospective Study.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of the hourly administration of titrated oral misoprostol solution (OMS) and vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor.
methodsTitrated OMS was administrated hourly for induction of labor, starting with a dose of 20 µg and terminating at a dose of 50 µg. The safety and efficacy of OMS were compared with that of vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor.
resultsFrom June 2016 to October 2019, 2280 (78.3%) and 2115 (72.9%) women who received titrated OMS and vaginal dinoprostone, respectively, had a vaginal delivery (P = 0.005). Cesarean delivery was performed in 632 (21.7%) and 783 (27.0%) women who received titrated OMS and vaginal dinoprostone, respectively (P = 0.008). Tachysystole with changes in fetal heart rate (FHR) was seen in 104 (3.6%) and 249 (8.6%) women in the OMS and dinoprostone groups, respectively (P = 0.007). The frequency of non-reassuring FHR was lower in the OMS group compared to the dinoprostone group (P = 0.006).
conclusionThe titrated OMS has an efficacy comparable to vaginal dinoprostone. Moreover, it causes a lower incidence of cesarean delivery, lower frequency of tachysystole with changes in FHR, and non-reassuring FHR.
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.