SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2023
Comparison of the effect of oral and vaginal misoprostol on labor induction: updating a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus oxytocin for labor induction in women with prelabor rupture of membranes: a meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- A disproportionality analysis of FDA adverse event reporting system events for misoprostol.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Factors of Non-Compliance with a Protocol for Oral Administration of Misoprostol (AngustaJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study is aimed to compare the effect of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol to induce labor as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsElectronic databases including PubMed [Medline], Scopus, Web of science, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the relevant keywords. All RCTs comparing the effect of oral vs vaginal misoprostol on labor induction were considered. The Cochrane Risk of Bias checklist was used for assessing quality of included RCTs. All statistical analyses were completed using STATA (Version 16) and Revman (Version 5).
resultsThirty-three RCTs with 5162 patients (1560 in oral and 2602 in vaginal groups) were included in this meta-analysis. Labor induction length did differ significantly between the two routes of misoprostol administration [Standardized Mean Difference: 0.40 h, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34, 0.46; I
conclusionsBased on results of this meta-analysis, it can be inferred that currently, clinical specialists can decide to use this drug orally or vaginally on a case-by-case basis, depending on the condition of the pregnant mother and the baby.
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.