ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiogenic Serum Biomarker Levels Are Related to Onset of Labour in Low-Risk Term and Post-Term Pregnancies: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
- Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLabor induction exhibits considerable variations in protocols and medication regimens. Limited studies compare vaginal dinoprostone inserts with different oral misoprostol dosages, considering parity influence. This study explores the distinctions among 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone inserts and oral misoprostol 25 μg every 2 and every 4 h for labor induction, stratified by parity. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study involved 607 participants across two hospitals. The primary outcome, time from induction to delivery, and secondary outcomes, including mode of delivery and maternal and fetal safety, were assessed.
resultsPatient characteristics revealed differences in indication for labor induction, with the dinoprostone cohort having fewer post-term and premature rupture of membranes cases but more intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational age. Both oral misoprostol regimens showed a shorter time to delivery interval compared to the dinoprostone cohort (median: 1380 min [IQR 1381.0] and 1127.0 min [IQR 1214.0] vs 1631.5 [IQR 1736.2], p < 0.001 and p = 0.014). Only the difference between oral misoprostol q2h and vaginal dinoprostone remained significant for nulliparous but not multiparous women, losing significance over all the population after adjusting for confounding factors. The proportion of women giving birth within 24 h did not significantly differ between misoprostol q2h and dinoprostone after adjusting for confounders. When comparing misoprostol q4h with dinoprostone after confounder adjustment, an increased time to delivery interval for misoprostol q4h was found (p = 0.001). Both oral misoprostol regimens exhibited fewer meconium-stained liquor (miso q4h: OR 0.44, miso q2h: OR 0.34) and cesarean sections (miso q4h: OR 0.48, miso q2h: OR 0.53) compared to dinoprostone, even after adjustment for confounders.
conclusionsOur study suggests that oral misoprostol 25 μg q4h is less effective than 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction if parity and indication for induction are adjusted for, particularly in multiparous women. In terms of side effects, oral misoprostol regimens seem superior to vaginal dinoprostone. Our data support the individualized use of different agents for labor induction according to parity, indication for induction, bishop score, and women's preference.
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.