ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Study of Vaginal Misoprostol Tablet Versus Dinoprostone Insert in Induction of Labor: A Prospective Interventional Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
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
Introduction Induction of labor (IOL) is an essential obstetric procedure for maternal and fetal safety when continuing pregnancy is risky. Prostaglandin analogs like misoprostol (Prosaglandin E1 (PGE1)) and Dinoprostone (Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)) are commonly used for cervical ripening and labor induction. This study compares the efficacy and safety of vaginal tablet misoprostol versus Dinoprostone insert in the IOL. Materials and methods This prospective, interventional study was conducted at BLDE University, Vijayapura, from April 2023 to February 2025, involving 106 pregnant women at term. Participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 received a 10 mg Dinoprostone vaginal insert, while Group 2 received 25 mcg vaginal misoprostol every four hours. Key outcomes included vaginal delivery rates, cesarean section rates, and maternal and neonatal complications. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Results Vaginal delivery occurred in 39 (73.58%) of the Dinoprostone group compared to 27 (50.94%) in the misoprostol group (p=0.02). The mean induction-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (15.2 ± 4.9 hours vs. 18.3 ± 4.29 hours, p<0.001). Maternal complications, including postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), were more common in the misoprostol group 13 (24.5%). Neonatal complications, such as neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and lower Apgar scores, were also significantly higher in the misoprostol group. Conclusion Both misoprostol and Dinoprostone are effective for labor induction, but misoprostol shortens the induction-to-delivery interval at the cost of increased cesarean rates and fetal complications. Dinoprostone, while slower, shows better fetal outcomes and fewer complications, making it a preferable option for high-risk pregnancies. Tailoring the choice of induction agent based on patient-specific factors is essential.
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.