236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16828095)
1. Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor.
Feitosa FE; Sampaio ZS; Alencar CA; Amorim MM; Passini R
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2006 Aug; 94(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 16828095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial.
Bartusevicius A; Barcaite E; Krikstolaitis R; Gintautas V; Nadisauskiene R
BJOG; 2006 Dec; 113(12):1431-7. PubMed ID: 17083652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial.
Gattás DSMB; de Amorim MMR; Feitosa FEL; da Silva-Junior JR; Ribeiro LCG; Souza GFA; Souza ASR
Reprod Health; 2020 Apr; 17(1):47. PubMed ID: 32272959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study.
Zahran KM; Shahin AY; Abdellah MS; Elsayh KI
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2009 Dec; 35(6):1054-60. PubMed ID: 20144171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Misoprostol 50 microg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study.
Caliskan E; Bodur H; Ozeren S; Corakci A; Ozkan S; Yucesoy I
Gynecol Obstet Invest; 2005; 59(3):155-61. PubMed ID: 15640607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial protocol.
Gattás DSMB; da Silva Junior JR; Souza ASR; Feitosa FE; de Amorim MMR
Reprod Health; 2018 Apr; 15(1):65. PubMed ID: 29669596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of 25 µg sublingual and 50 µg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: a randomized controlled equivalence trial.
Sharami SH; Milani F; Faraji R; Bloukimoghadam K; Salamat F; Momenzadeh S; Ebrahimi H
Arch Iran Med; 2014 Oct; 17(10):652-6. PubMed ID: 25305762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sublingual misoprostol with that of vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term.
Sheela CN; John C; Preethi R
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2015; 35(5):469-71. PubMed ID: 25358078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial.
Ozkan S; Calişkan E; Doğer E; Yücesoy I; Ozeren S; Vural B
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2009 Jul; 280(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 19034471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison between vaginal and sublingual misoprostol 50 µg for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor: randomized clinical trial.
Conde A; Ben S; Tarigo J; Artucio S; Varela V; Grimaldi P; Sosa C; Alonso J
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2017 Apr; 295(4):839-844. PubMed ID: 28204882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction.
Souza AS; Feitosa FE; Costa AA; Pereira AP; Carvalho AS; Paixão RM; Katz L; Amorim MM
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2013 Dec; 123(3):207-12. PubMed ID: 24112746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparing vaginal and sublingual administration of misoprostol for labour induction in women with intra-uterine fetal death.
Geels YP; de Gouberville MC; Visser L; van Asten HA
Trop Doct; 2010 Apr; 40(2):77-80. PubMed ID: 20305098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A prospective double blind study using oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction.
Mehrotra S; Singh U; Gupta HP
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2010; 30(5):461-4. PubMed ID: 20604647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction.
Wing DA; Ham D; Paul RH
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1999 May; 180(5):1155-60. PubMed ID: 10329871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Intravaginal Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction in Nulliparous Women: A Double-blinded, Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.
Zhang Y; Zhu HP; Fan JX; Yu H; Sun LZ; Chen L; Chang Q; Zhao NQ; Di W
Chin Med J (Engl); 2015 Oct; 128(20):2736-42. PubMed ID: 26481739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of efficacy and safety of sublingual misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening in prelabour rupture of membranes after 34 weeks of gestation.
Jha N; Sagili H; Jayalakshmi D; Lakshminarayanan S
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Jan; 291(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 25055933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term.
Shetty A; Danielian P; Templeton A
BJOG; 2001 Mar; 108(3):238-43. PubMed ID: 11281461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor.
Bartusevicius A; Barcaite E; Nadisauskiene R
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2005 Oct; 91(1):2-9. PubMed ID: 16109419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol tablets and prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labor in premature rupture of membranes at term: a randomized comparative trial.
Chaudhuri S; Mitra SN; Banerjee PK; Biswas PK; Bhattacharyya S
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2011 Nov; 37(11):1564-71. PubMed ID: 21676083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A randomised comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term.
Nassar AH; Awwad J; Khalil AM; Abu-Musa A; Mehio G; Usta IM
BJOG; 2007 Oct; 114(10):1215-21. PubMed ID: 17877674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
