Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39187361›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Comparison of Misoprostol for Labor Induction: Vaginal Insert

Dominik Ratiu, Mirka Hunke, Jessika Ratiu, Nina Mallmann-Gottschalk, Peter Mallmann, Sunhwa Baek, Berthold Grüttner, Katherina Hide-Moser

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dominik RatiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany dominik.ratiu@uk-koeln.de.
Mirka HunkeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Jessika RatiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Nina Mallmann-GottschalkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Peter MallmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Sunhwa BaekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Berthold GrüttnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Katherina Hide-MoserDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimThe aim of the present retrospective study was to examine the efficiency and safety of the induction of labor with Misoprostol, administered either vaginally or orally. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis retrospective cohort study included pregnant women with a gestational age of ≥36 +0 weeks and a singleton pregnancy who underwent induction of labor with Misoprostol as vaginal insert or as tablet (oral) between January 2014 and January 2019 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital of Cologne. The objective of this study was to analyze the time until delivery and the maternal and neonatal outcomes.

resultsA total of 1,511 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, of whom 1,035 patients (68.5%) underwent induction of labor with a misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) and 476 (31.5%) with tablets (oral misoprostol: OM). MVI significantly shortened the time from application to delivery (p<0.001) in comparison to OM, reduced the need for epidural anesthesia (EA) (p=0.018) without an increase in caesarean sections (CS) (p=1), ventouse deliveries (VD) (p=0.715), maternal birth injuries or a reduced neonatal outcome (APGAR-Score, umbilical cord pH).

conclusionMVI is superior to OM in terms of efficiency (primary outcome: time from application to delivery) and is equally safe (primary outcome: CS rate). Our study, along with existing literature, highlights the need for further research, particularly regarding neonatal outcomes. Additionally, it underscores the importance of careful consideration when inducing labor and ensuring informed consent.

Indexed as

Labor, InducedMisoprostolAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralAdultFemaleHumansOxytocicsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective StudiesMisoprostolOxytocicsefficiencyInduction of laborMisoprostolneonatal outcomesafety

Identifiers

PMID39187361
PMCPMC11363794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.