Oral Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour

Sultana, Nayma; Rouf, Salma; Rashid, Maliha

doi:10.3329/jbcps.v24i2.147

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were consistent with those of N. Sultana et al, [8], where they reported a 4% rate of hyperstimulation in vaginal group. These results were also consistent with those of Khadija et al, [7], where they reported a 1% rate of hyperstimulation in vaginal group.…”

Section: Maternal Complicationssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…These results were consistent with those of N Sultana et al, [8], where failed Induction rate was 8% in vaginal group and it was 6% in oral group.…”

Section: Failed Inductionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…RatnaKhatri et al, [6] (2007) 15.03 hrs Khadija et al, [7] (2004) 09.09 hrs N Sultana et al, [8] (2003) 06.61 hrs Rozinarasheed et al, [9] (2002) 13.56hrs Chandersheikher et al, [10] (2009) 10.35hrs Present study 14.042hrs The success of vaginal deliveries in oral group was 94% as compared to 86% in vaginal group. Failure rate in oral group was 6% as compared to 14% in vaginal group.…”

Section: Vaginal Deliveries Induction Delivery Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Study of Oral and Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour, Maternal and Foetal Outcome

Komala¹

2013

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour .The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried.

show abstract

Section: Maternal Complicationssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…These results were consistent with those of N Sultana et al, [8], where failed Induction rate was 8% in vaginal group and it was 6% in oral group.…”

Section: Failed Inductionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Vaginal Deliveries Induction Delivery Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Study of Oral and Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour, Maternal and Foetal Outcome

Komala¹

2013

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gestational diabetes 4. PROM 50 μg sublingually 25 μg vaginally 418 eligible 280 excluded 138 included Compare the efficacy and safety of 50 mg of sublingual misoprostol with 25 mg of vaginal misoprostol administered for labor induction at term Sultana (2006) [ 55 ] 1. Gestational age 37–42 w 2.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pergialiotis

Panagiotopoulos

Constantinou³

et al. 2022

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE1 analogue that is used for induction of labour. Current guidelines support the use of doses that do not exceed 25 mcg in order to limit maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The present meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of oral compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol in terms of induction of labor and adverse peripartum outcomes. Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception till April 2022. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of oral misoprostol (per os or sublingual) compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol. Effect sizes were calculated in R. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of small study effects, p-hacking. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis according to the dose of misoprostol was also investigated. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the risk of bias 2 tool. Quality of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, ranging from very low to high. Results Overall, 57 studies were included that involved 10,975 parturient. Their risk of bias ranged between low-moderate. There were no differences among the routes of intake in terms of successful vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80) and cesarean section rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82, 1.04). Sublingual misoprostol was superior compared to vaginal misoprostol in reducing the interval from induction to delivery (MD – 1.11 h, 95% CI – 2.06, – 0.17). On the other hand, per os misoprostol was inferior compared to vaginal misoprostol in terms of this outcome (MD 3.45 h, 95% CI 1.85, 5.06). Maternal and neonatal morbidity was not affected by the route or dose of misoprostol. Conclusion The findings of our study suggest that oral misoprostol intake is equally safe to vaginal misoprostol in terms of inducing labor at term. Sublingual intake seems to outperform the per os and vaginal routes without increasing the accompanying morbidity. Increasing the dose of misoprostol does not seem to increase its efficacy. Clinical trial registration Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V9JHF).

show abstract