ArticleCureus2023
A Comparative Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Misoprostol, Intravenous Oxytocin, and Intravaginal Dinoprostone for Labor Induction in Pakistani Women.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA frequent medical procedure to accelerate labor is the induction of labor. There are different methods of labor induction, including the use of medications such as misoprostol, oxytocin, and dinoprostone.
objectiveThis research compared the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol, intravenous oxytocin, and intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in Pakistani women. METHODOLOGY: A study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hayatabad Medical Complex-Medical Teaching Institute (MTI) and Lady Reading Hospital-MTI, Peshawar, Pakistan, over two years. It included 378 women between 38 and 42 gestational weeks, divided into three groups of 126 women each. The oral misoprostol group was given a maximum of six doses of a 25 μg oral misoprostol solution (oral misoprostol tablet of 200 μg dissolved in 200 ml) at intervals of two hours. The drip rate for the intravenous oxytocin group ranged from 6 mIU/minute to 37 mIU/minute. The intravaginal dinoprostone group received a controlled-release vaginal insert containing 10mg of intravaginal dinoprostone, which was left in place for 12 hours.
resultsMore women in the oral misoprostol group (n=94; 74.6%) had successful inductions when compared to the intravaginal dinoprostone (n=83; 65.9%) and intravenous oxytocin (n = 77; 64.71%) groups. Oral misoprostol had the greatest proportion of normal vaginal deliveries (n=62; 65.95%), followed by intravaginal dinoprostone (n=47; 56.63%), and intravenous oxytocin had the lowest rate (n=33; 42.85%). Cesarean section rates were greatest in the intravenous oxytocin group (n=31; 40.26%), followed by the intravaginal dinoprostone group (n=29; 34.94%), and lowest in the oral misoprostol group (n=24; 25.53%).
conclusionOral misoprostol induces labor in women safely and effectively, resulting in the lowest percentage of cesarean deliveries and the highest percentage of normal vaginal deliveries, respectively. Intravaginal dinoprostone showed the lowest rate of side effects, followed by oral misoprostol while intravenous oxytocin had the highest rate of side effects.
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.