213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25358078)
1. 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]
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. EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF 2-HOURLY 20 MCG ORAL MISOPROSTOL SOLUTION COMPARED TO STANDARD INTRAVENOUS OXYTOCIN IN LABOUR INDUCTION DUE TO PRE-LABOUR RUPTURE OF MEMBRANES AT TERM: A RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL AT KENYATTA NATIONAL HOSPITAL.
Mbaluka CM; Kamau K; Karanja JG; Mugo N
East Afr Med J; 2014 Sep; 91(9):303-10. PubMed ID: 26866082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel.
Danielian P; Porter B; Ferri N; Summers J; Templeton A
Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1999 Aug; 106(8):793-7. PubMed ID: 10453828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction.
Rasheed R; Alam AA; Younus S; Raza F
J Pak Med Assoc; 2007 Aug; 57(8):404-7. PubMed ID: 17902524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Induction of labour in term premature rupture of membranes; oxytocin versus sublingual misoprostol; a randomised clinical trial.
Pourali L; Saghafi N; Eslami Hasan Abadi S; Tara F; Vatanchi AM; Motamedi E
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2018 Feb; 38(2):167-171. PubMed ID: 28784054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Efficacy of sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor at term and post term according to parity and membrane integrity: a prospective observational study.
Brusati V; Brembilla G; Cirillo F; Mastricci L; Rossi S; Paganelli AM; Ferrazzi E
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2017 Mar; 30(5):508-513. PubMed ID: 27321698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a more effective agent than prostaglandin F2 alpha gel and prostaglandin E2 pessary.
Majoko F; Zwizwai M; Nyström L; Lindmark G
Cent Afr J Med; 2002; 48(11-12):123-8. PubMed ID: 14562597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review.
Souza AS; Amorim MM; Feitosa FE
BJOG; 2008 Oct; 115(11):1340-9. PubMed ID: 18823486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Sublingual misoprostol compared to artificial rupture of membranes plus oxytocin infusion for labour induction in nulliparous women with a favourable cervix at term.
Lo TK; Lau WL; Wong KS; Tang LC
Hong Kong Med J; 2006 Oct; 12(5):345-50. PubMed ID: 17028353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
