Randomized controlled trial between sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term

Sheir, Essam M.; El-Feky, Alaa Eldin H.; El-Sayed, Amr

doi:10.21608/ebwhj.2019.33480

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eclampsia 7. Congenital anomalies 50 mg orally every 4 h for maximum 5 doses 25 μg vaginally every 4 h for maximum 5 doses 200 included Compare mode of delivery, induction to delivery interval in vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery when with vaginally used vs orally used misoprostol Sheir (2019) [ 32 ] 1. Gestational age ≥ 37w 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