ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Comparison of two labor induction regimens with intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg and adverse perinatal outcomes.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to compare two labor induction regimens (4 and 6 h), to determine predictors of successful labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg tablets, and to evaluate the association with adverse perinatal outcomes.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study that included singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labor with an intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg tablet between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation. The pregnant women were divided into two groups: Group 1-intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg every 4 h and Group 2-intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg every 6 h.
resultsPregnant women were divided into Group 1 (n=289) and Group 2 (n=278). Group 1 had a higher median number of intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg tablets (3.0 vs. 2.0 tablets, p<0.001), a lower prevalence of postpartum hemorrhage (7.6 vs. 32.7%, p<0.001), and a higher need for oxytocin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.47-2.98, p<0.001) than Group 2. Models including intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg tablets every 4 and 6 h [x2(1)=23.7, OR: 4.35, p<0.0001], parity [x2(3)=39.4, OR: 0.59, p=0.031], and Bishop's score [x2(4)=10.8, OR: 0.77, p=0.019] were the best predictors of failure of labor induction. A statistically significant difference between groups was observed between the use of the first intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg tablet at the beginning (Breslow p<0.001) and the end of the active labor phase (Long Hank p=0.002).
conclusionPregnant women who used intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg every 4 h had a longer time from the labor induction to the beginning of the active phase of labor and higher rates of adverse perinatal outcomes than women who used intravaginal misoprostol 25 μg every 6 h.
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.