Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. 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, 8 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study attempts to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 50μgm intracervical misoprostol in comparison with intravaginal and sublingual for the induction of labor at term pregnant women.
methodsThis study is designed as a parallel clinical trial study. Three hundred and fifteen term pregnancies requiring induction of labor were treated with the maximum used misoprostol intracervical, sublingual, and vaginal doses. Participants were randomly allocated into three groups of 105. The dose was repeated every 4 h until adequate uterine contraction and Bishop Score were achieved. The duration of induction to births, time to the active phase, the rate of births, and the need for caesarean section were compared in three groups. Additionally, labor course and side effects were recorded and analyzed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered for statistical analyses.
findingsLabor was successfully induced in all cases most (63%) of which required a single dose of misoprostol. Ninety-three (93.0%, p < 0.05) cervical participants proceeded to vaginal births. This figure was also the same in the vaginal and sublingual group of 83 cases (83.0%). The other 41 cases received caesarean section with more indications of failure to progress and meconium-stained liquor. The results indicated that 278 (92.7%) births were achieved in less than 10 h. Time from start of medication to the active phase of labor and childbirth was 3.01 ± 0.86 and 6.1 ± 1.3 h in the Cervical group, 4.2 ± 0.66 and 8.4 ± 0.92 h in the sublingual group, and 5.06 ± 1.1 and 9.2 ± 1.5 h in the vaginal group respectively (p < 0.001). The Caesarean rate was lower in the cervical group than in the two other groups (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the study groups in terms of Apgar score and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Furthermore, no maternal and neonatal complications were observed.
conclusionIn addition to the sublingual and intravaginal routes of administration, intracervical misoprostol at a single dose of 50μgm appears to be an effective method for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix. Like all medical interventions, a discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to induction of labor with this medication in each woman should be undertaken before treatment.
trial registrationThis clinical study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with IRCT ID: IRCT20190415043278N1 . Registration date was on May 13, 2019 and May 27, 2019 respectively ( http://www.irct.ir ).
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.