ArticleThe East African health research journal2020
Health Related Quality of Life Post Labour Induction with Misoprostol Versus Dinoprostone At Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: A cross Sectional Study.
Article in The East African health research journal, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLabour induction using Misoprostol or Dinoprostone results to similar maternal and foetal clinical outcomes. However, the clinical outcome measures have rarely been combined with effects of interventions on patients' health related quality of life. This study aimed to assess postpartum health related quality of life of parturient after labour induction with vaginal administration of misoprostol versus dinoprostone.
methodsThis was a comparative cross sectional study in which pregnant women who underwent labour induction with misoprostol and dinoprostone during the study period were included. Data were collected within 24 hours post-delivery using the 36 item short form health survey questionnaire which consists of 24 attributes distributed in five domains including bodily pains and physical performance three attributes each, mental health seven attributes, general health two attributes, social functioning six attributes and three attributes for labour induction satisfaction. We first estimated scores of all attributes in each domain using Likert scales and then the domain scores were converted into a 0 to 100 scales to express in percentage of total scores. Quality of life was compared in the two study groups using the independent samples T Test. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for marital status, gravidity, parity, baseline cervical status, time interval from induction to delivery and mode of delivery.
resultsWomen who received misoprostol reported better health related quality of life compared to those who received dinoprostone (mean score 92.89 vs. 87.25;
conclusionHealth related quality of life information is of particular value in routine care of natal and postnatal mothers. Current and updated guidelines should address the impacts of labour induction interventions on maternal health related quality of life, and encourage the use of quality of life information in provision of holistic natal and postnatal care services. Clinical trials are recommended to determine the effectiveness of labour induction with either of the two methods and address the historical adverse outcomes associated to the use of misoprostol.
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.