ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Retracted: Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. 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
- Retraction of
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
X. Wang, C. Zhang, Xia Li, H. Qi, Q. Liu, and J. Lei, "Safety and Efficacy of Titrated Oral Misoprostol Solution Versus Vaginal Dinoprostone for Induction of Labor: A Single-Center Randomized Control Trial," International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 154, no. 3 (2021): 436-443. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13546. The above article, published online on 17 December 2020, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Professor Michael Geary; the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. A third party raised concerns regarding errors in the reported data and statistics of the article. An external statistician reviewed the data and was not able to reproduce the listed results for the Bishop score, the post-term pregnancy variable, the gestational hypertension variable, the not using insulin variable, the vaginal delivery variable, and the failed induction variable. In addition, the journal detected numerical errors in Table 4, with contradictions between frequencies and reported percentages. The authors did not respond to multiple requests for an explanation and the original data. The editors have determined that the large number of errors identified and lack of original data provided fundamentally compromise the results presented, which necessitates retraction. The authors did not respond to our notice regarding the retraction.
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.