Trial reportReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2023
Oxytocin Versus Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor in Pregnant Women with Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05215873 (Oxytocin Versus Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor in Pregnant Women With Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Oxytocin Versus Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor in Pregnant Women With Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 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
- Low-dose oral misoprostol vs. oxytocin in premature rupture of membranes at ≥ 36 weeks: a comparison of labor induction outcomes and postpartum hemorrhage risk.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Review
- Is there a role for oral misoprostol in labor induction for prelabor rupture of membranes at term?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Safety and effectiveness of different modes of labor induction among pregnant women delivering at referral hospitals in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: a cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin infusion against oral misoprostol for inducing labour in pregnant women with term prelabor membrane rupture. We randomized 173 pregnant women presenting with term prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital into Group A (underwent induction of labor (IOL) by 25μg misoprostol oral tablet every 4 h, for maximum 5 doses) and an identical Group B: (underwent IOL by oxytocin infusion according to the hospital protocol). Our primary outcome was rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, while the secondary outcomes included the time till active phase, induction to delivery interval, maternal pyrexia, nausea and vomiting, fetal distress, Apgar score, birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Both groups showed high rates of vaginal delivery (82.4% & 87.1% for misoprostol group and oxytocin group respectively) with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.394). However, patients induced by misoprostol took significantly less time to reach active phase with a shorter induction to delivery interval as compared to patients induced with oxytocin. This difference was clear in multiparous women, but not observed in primiparous women when subgroup analysis was done. No significant difference was found as regards other outcomes. Our study showed that both oral misoprostol and oxytocin are effective and safe for IOL in patients with PROM, with shorter induction-delivery interval in patients induced by oral misoprostol, an effect that is clear in multiparous but not primiparous women.
trial registrationNCT05215873, on 31/01/2022, "retrospectively registered".
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.