Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42192363›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026

Misoprostol for labor induction: an alternative to dinoprostone? A retrospective observational study.

Alessia Sala, Elisa Rizzante, Margherita Cuman, Ginevra Battello, Maria De Martino, Pietro Piussi, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Lorenza Driul

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alessia SalaMaternal and Child Health Department, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ″Santa Maria della Misericordia″ University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, 33100, Italy. alessiasala.sissa@gmail.com.
Elisa RizzanteMaternal and Child Health Department, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ″Santa Maria della Misericordia″ University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, 33100, Italy.
Margherita CumanObstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Sanitaria Friuli Occidenteale, Pordenone, 33170, Italy.
Ginevra BattelloMaternal and Child Health Department, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ″Santa Maria della Misericordia″ University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, 33100, Italy.
Maria De MartinoDivision of Medical Statistics, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, 33100, Italy.
Pietro PiussiDepartment of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, 33100, Italy.
Giuseppe VizzielliMaternal and Child Health Department, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ″Santa Maria della Misericordia″ University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, 33100, Italy.
Lorenza DriulMaternal and Child Health Department, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ″Santa Maria della Misericordia″ University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, 33100, Italy. lorenza.driul@uniud.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisoprostol and dinoprostone are established agents for labor induction. Since the introduction of standardized dosing regimens of misoprostol, few studies have evaluated its clinical use. The primary objective was to assess the implementation of a misoprostol-based induction protocol and its safety and effectiveness in routine obstetric care. Secondary objectives included comparing induction-to-delivery time between misoprostol and dinoprostone, evaluating the induction-to-labor interval, need for a second method, and obstetric/neonatal outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study from September 2021 to December 2024. Inclusion criteria were singleton term pregnancies undergoing labor induction with either misoprostol (Group 1) or dinoprostone (Group 2) and a Bishop score < 7.

results528 patients were included in Group 1 and 345 in Group 2. A robust double analysis was applied to balance age, gestational age, Bishop score, and parity, aiming to mitigate the potential influence of baseline differences between the groups. No significant differences were observed in induction-to-delivery time (p = 0.710) or time to active labor (p = 0.652). However, Group 1 showed a significantly higher vaginal delivery rate (OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.10-1.73; p = 0.004) and a lower risk of postpartum hemorrhage (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.46-0.73; p < 0.001).

conclusionsThe standardized oral misoprostol protocol proved safe and effective for labor induction in patients with an unfavorable cervix. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, misoprostol showed similar neonatal outcomes and maternal advantages, including higher vaginal delivery rates and reduced postpartum hemorrhage, supporting its use in routine obstetric practice.

Indexed as

DinoprostoneLabor, InducedMisoprostolOxytocicsAdultCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective StudiesDinoprostoneMisoprostolOxytocicsCesarean sectionDinoprostoneInduction of laborLaborMisoprostolPostpartum hemorrhageVaginal delivery

Identifiers

PMID42192363
PMCPMC13390435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.