SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacologic cervical ripening strategies and time-related outcomes: a community hospital cohort study.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Misoprostol for labor induction: an alternative to dinoprostone? A retrospective observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Labor induction is a common obstetric intervention, increasingly performed worldwide, often using prostaglandins like misoprostol and dinoprostone. Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for inducing labor, examining their impact on various maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using four databases-PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library-from January 2000 to April 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving singleton pregnancies at term (37-42 weeks) with unfavorable cervices, where intravaginal misoprostol was compared to dinoprostone. Key outcomes evaluated for effectiveness included vaginal delivery within 24 h, overall vaginal delivery rate, and need for oxytocin augmentation. Safety outcomes assessed were tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation, abnormal cardiotocography, NICU admissions, cesarean delivery, and APGAR scores. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model in Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1. Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 1,801 participants (937 in the misoprostol group and 864 in the dinoprostone group) met the inclusion criteria. Misoprostol required a significantly less oxytocin augmentation than dinoprostone [RR = 0.83; 95% CI (0.71, 0.97), Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that intravaginal misoprostol is an effective and safe alternative to dinoprostone for labor induction at term. Misoprostol achieved comparable efficacy and safety outcomes while requiring less oxytocin augmentation, supporting its potential as a practical induction agent in clinical settings.
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.