ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical comparison of vaginal misoprostol combined with a foley balloon versus vaginal misoprostol alone for inducing labor: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common obstetrical procedures, with an increasing rate. The prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is frequently used as a primary method of labor induction. The optimal dose and route of administration is yet to be ascertained. Aim: To compare efficiacy and safety between a regimen of sublingually administered misoprostol and a regimen of orally administered misoprostol, with cesarean delivery as primary outcome. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted including women carrying a live, singleton fetus in a cephalic position with labor induced at >37 + 0 gestational weeks at Skåne University hospital, Lund, between January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2017. Data was obtained from computerized obstetrical charts. Results: Totally 2,404 women were included; 974 induced with sublingual misoprostol and 1,430 with oral solution. In primiparous women the cesarean delivery rate was lower in primiparous women induced with oral compared to sublingual misoprostol (20.5% vs. 28.6%, Conclusion: IOL with oral misoprostol solution was associated with a significantly higher vaginal delivery rate when compared to sublingual misoprostol, whereas sublingual misoprostol was associated with a significantly shorter time from induction to vaginal delivery. Oral administration is considered the most safe and efficient administration of misoprostol, although more studies are needed to find the optimal route and dosage of misoprostol for IOL.
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.