ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2022
Rectal vs. sublingual misoprostol in cesarean section: Three‑arm, randomized clinical trial.
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06364098 (Comparative Study Between the Roles of Intrauterine Misoprostol Versus the Sublingual Route for Prevention of Postpartum Blood Loss in Elective Cesarean Sections), which is not on this 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.
Comparative Study Between the Roles of Intrauterine Misoprostol Versus the Sublingual Route for Prevention of Postpartum Blood Loss in Elective Cesarean Sections: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisoprostol is a myometrial stimulant with uterotonic properties and can be administered rectally, vaginally, or sublingually. Numerous studies have investigated the effect of misoprostol on the prevention and treatment of PPH (postpartum hemorrhage) after vaginal delivery, but its use to control PPH during cesarean section has not been widely studied.
methodsIn this clinical trial study, 180 pregnant women who were candidates for cesarean section were included in the study. They were divided into 3 groups of 60 people (sublingual misoprostol group, rectal misoprostol group, control group). In all three groups, the volume of blood lost was recorded in the checklist at the end of surgery. Data were entered into SPSS software and analyzed.
resultsThe mean bleeding in the control group was 225.4±63.9, while it was 137.9±33.8 and 118.9±28.5 in the sublingual misoprostol group and rectal misoprostol group, respectively. We had significantly more bleeding in the control group (p<0.001) compared to the other two groups.
conclusionThese results confirm the positive effect of misoprostol in reducing bleeding and show the superiority of using rectal misoprostol compared to other methods of reducing bleeding during cesarean section.
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.