Oxytocin versus sustained‐release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score ≥4 and ≤6: A randomized controlled trial

Koc, Onder; Duran, Bülent; Özdemirci, Şafak; Albayrak, Mustafa; Koc, Ummugulsum

doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.02045.x

Cited by 10 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 103 trials identified, just 63 were RCTs. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 The majority of RCTs were single-center trials conducted in academic hospitals, which can limit the generalizability of the results to other community-based populations. Among the 12 multicenter trials, the number of centers ranged from 2 to 49 and tended to include both university-affiliated and community hospitals.…”

Section: Limitations Of Trials On Labor Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Viteri

Sibai

2018

AJP Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induction of labor is a common obstetric procedure performed in nearly a quarter of all deliveries in the United States. Pharmacological (prostaglandins, oxytocin) and/or mechanical methods (balloon catheters) are commonly used for labor induction; however, there is ongoing debate as to which method is the safest and most effective. This narrative review discusses key limitations of published trials on labor induction, including the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials directly comparing specific methods of induction, heterogeneous trial populations, and wide variation in the protocols used and outcomes reported. Furthermore, the majority of published trials were underpowered to detect significant differences in the most clinically relevant efficacy and safety outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, neonatal mortality). By identifying the limitations of labor induction trials, we hope to highlight the importance of quality published data to better inform guidelines and drive evidence-based treatment decisions.

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of Trials On Labor Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Viteri

Sibai

2018

AJP Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[15] In the literature, the studies comparing intravenous oxytocin and dinoprostone use during the induction of labor showed that dinoprostone causes less delivery failure than oxytocin and it is more effective and reliable method, [16][17][18] the study conducted by Koç et al comparing oxytocin and dinoprostone reported that labor occurred in a short time by oxytocin and caused less cesarean delivery even there is no statistical significance. [19] In our study, we found that active labor phase was significantly shorter although latent duration was longer in dinoprostone group compared to oxytocin group (p=0.000). Mazouni C et al indicated in their study that there was no maternal and fetal morbidity in patients applied dinoprostone while the caesarean rate was 3.5 times more.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

Comparison of the use of dinoprostone and oxytocin for induction in cases with Bishop score of ≤4

Yörük¹

2013

Perinatal J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency, reliability, and maternal and perinatal complications of dinoprostone and oxytocin for induction of labor, both separately and together, in women with a Bishop score of ≤4. Methods: A total of 279 primigravida patients, diagnosed with oligohydramnios and prolonged pregnancy, over 37 weeks of gestation with a Bishop score of ≤4 and had been admitted to our hospital's delivery unit for labor induction between January and April 2013 were divided into three groups. Thirty-four patients who were administered intravaginal dinoprostone formed the 1st group. The 2nd group consisted of 204 patients who were administered intravenous oxytocin. The 41 patients in the 3rd group were initially administered dinoprostone and subsequently oxytocin. Age, body mass index (BMI), the duration of the latent and active phases of labor, presence of meconium, and changes in the NST were recorded for each pregnant woman. Delivery method, birth weight and gender of the neonates were also recorded. Indications for caesarean section and maternal and neonatal complications were investigated. Results: When these three groups were compared, no difference was found in terms of age, gravida, parity, BMI and duration of pregnancy. However; comparison of the 3 groups for latent and active phases indicated that the active phase to be significantly shorter in the patients administered dinoprostone (p=0.001). When compared for the caesarean section ratios, 1st and 3rd groups were found to have higher ratios than the 2nd group (p=0.000). No difference was noted among the 3 groups in terms of maternal and perinatal outcomes. Conclusion: Although dinoprostone increases caesarean section ratio, it decreases the active phase of labor and does not affect maternal and fetal morbidity. The labor induction method to be chosen may change depending on the patient and option of the physician doing the evaluation.

show abstract

“…32 However, one of the trials is limited by the fact that oxytocin was not administered subsequent to DVI which is not typical practice. Boulvain et al 30 analyzed 11 trials of intracervical versus vaginal prostaglandin gel.…”

Section: Pge2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

Goetzl

2014

Clinical Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the years, multiple forms and doses of pharmacologic agents have been used for cervical ripening and labor induction. This chapter will review potential criteria and article situations for choosing a particular pharmacologic agent. The discussion in this chapter will be limited to comparisons between pharmacologic agents; direct comparisons between mechanical agents and pharmacologic agents will largely be reviewed in the accompanying article: Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: mechanical. For the purposes of this discussion, the term labor induction will be limited to patients with a "favorable cervix" by Bishop's score <6, whereas the term cervical ripening will be limited to patients with an unfavorable cervix and includes subsequent induction or augmentation of labor. Although the pharmacologic agent used for the initial cervical ripening process is the focus of this discussion, subsequent treatment with oxytocin may or may not be required for delivery.

show abstract

Oxytocin versus sustained‐release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score ≥4 and ≤6: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Intravenous oxytocin is effective to stimulate labor at term for patients with Bishop scores ≥ 4 and ≤ 6, with a shorter time interval from induction to vaginal delivery.

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Comparison of the use of dinoprostone and oxytocin for induction in cases with Bishop score of ≤4

Methods of Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About