A double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 to induce labor

A comparison of 100 µg oral misoprostol every 3 hours and 6 hours for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial

“…Misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin (PG) E1 analog, available in the market for gastric ulcer prevention, was first used for labor induction in 1987 1 . Since then, several studies have shown that vaginal misoprostol is superior to other conventional methods for labor induction 2–4 . However, there were few randomized trials of oral misoprostol for this purpose.…”

“…1 Since then, several studies have shown that vaginal misoprostol is superior to other conventional methods for labor induction. [2][3][4] However, there were few randomized trials of oral misoprostol for this purpose. Oral misoprostol has been used for labor induction in vari-ous regimens, such as 50 m g every 4 hours and 6 hours, 5,6 100-200 m g every 3 hours, 7 200 m g every 6 hours, 8 and 100 m g vaginally followed by 100 m g orally every 2 hours.…”

Induction of labour with a viable infant: a randomised clinical trial comparing intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal dinoprostone

“…Fourteen randomised trials have compared these two prostaglandins, but only one was double-blinded 18 , three excluded patients who had been randomised from the analysis 8,9,18 , and five included no more than 100 patients, too small a number to be able to show an excess of morbidity 8,9,11,17,18 . Fourteen randomised trials have compared these two prostaglandins, but only one was double-blinded 18 , three excluded patients who had been randomised from the analysis 8,9,18 , and five included no more than 100 patients, too small a number to be able to show an excess of morbidity 8,9,11,17,18 .…”

Misoprostol for labor induction in term pregnancy

“…The first report of the use of misoprostol for labor induction in viable term pregnancies followed in a letter to The Lancet 5 years later [9]. Again, 5 years later, the first randomized, double-blind controlled study has been published comparing misoprostol and the conventionally available dinoprostone [10]. Although, since then, i.e., in the last 10 years, hundreds of studies for misoprostol use in labor induction-most of them randomized controlled trials-have been performed and published, misoprostol use for this indication is still off-label in almost all countries, largely because of the fact that the patentholding company did not envisage registration studies for official approval for obvious reasons.…”

“…The results suggested that misoprostol is a cost-effective and safe alternative for induction of labor at term. Surbek et al [10] thereafter published the first randomized controlled doubleblind trial comparing misoprostol to dinoprostone. With these promising results, the use of misoprostol became an area of active research in the following decade.…”