ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- A study on the association between different delivery modes and pelvic floor muscle strength in women during early postpartum period.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- Use of vaginal dinoprostone for women with term prelabor rupture of membranes and an unfavorable cervix within 6 h versus within 6-24 h.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The modalities of induction of labor in the event of premature rupture of membranes are controversial. The main purpose of this study was to compare the modalities of delivery after the use of dinoprostone or misoprostol for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix. We then studied maternal and fetal morbidity for the two drugs. Retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study in a level 3 maternity unit in France from 2009 to 2018 comparing vaginal administration of misoprostol 50 µg every six hours (maximum 150 µg) and administration of dinoprostone 10 mg, a slow-release vaginal insert, for 24 h (maximum 20 mg), for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6). We included 904 patients, 656 in the misoprostol group and 248 in the dinoprostone group. Vaginal delivery rate was significantly higher in the dinoprostone group (89% vs. 82%, p = 0.016). There were more cesarean sections for abnormal fetal heart rate in the misoprostol group (p = 0.005). The time interval from induction to the beginning of the active phase of labor and the duration of labor were shorter in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (437 min vs. 719 min, p < 0.001 and 335 min vs. 381 min, p = 0.0023, respectively). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different in the two groups. Vaginal dinoprostone used for labor induction in preterm rupture of membranes seems to be more effective for vaginal delivery than vaginal misoprostol (50 µg).
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.