Observational studyScientific reports2021
Misoprostol vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in labour induction: comparison of obstetrical outcome.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- 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 dynamic inflammatory profile of pregnancy can be monitored using a novel lipid-based mass spectrometry technique.Molecular omics · 2023Article
- Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Induction of labour (IOL) is increasingly used in obstetric practice. For patients with unfavourable cervix, we are constantly looking for an optimal, in terms of effectiveness and safety, ripening of cervix protocol. It was retrospective cohort study. We analyzed obstetrical results in 481 patients undergoing IOL in one center using two different vaginal inserts that release prostaglandins at a constant rate for 24 h-misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) with 200 µg of misoprostol (n = 367) and dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI) with 10 mg of dinoprostone (n = 114). Full-term, single pregnancy patients with intact fetal membranes and the cervix evaluated in Bishop score ≤ 6 were included in the analysis. In the group of MVI patients, the labour ended with caesarean section more often (OR 2.71 95% CI 1.63-4.47) and more frequent unreassuring cardiotocographic trace indicating the surgical delivery occurred (OR 2.38 95% CI 1.10-5.17). We did not notice any differences in the percentage of vacuum extraction and patients in whom the use of oxytocin was necessary during labour induction. The clinical status of newborns after birth and the pH of cord blood did not differ between groups.The use of MVI 200 μg in patients with an unriped cervix is associated with a greater chance of completing delivery by caesarean section and increased chance of abnormal intrapartum CTG trace compared to the use of DVI 10 mg. These differences do not affect the clinical and biochemical status of the newborn.
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.