213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25358078)
21. Is expensive always better? Comparison of two induction agents for term rupture of membranes.
Parisaei M; Erskine KJ
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2008 Apr; 28(3):290-3. PubMed ID: 18569470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Randomized comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction.
Chang CH; Chang FM
J Formos Med Assoc; 1997 May; 96(5):366-9. PubMed ID: 9170825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Effectiveness and safety of vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in unfavourable cervix in 3rd trimester.
Abbasi N; Danish N; Shakoor F; Parveen Z; Bilal SA
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad; 2008; 20(3):33-5. PubMed ID: 19610511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol.
Adeniji OA; Oladokun A; Olayemi O; Adeniji OI; Odukogbe AA; Ogunbode O; Aimakhu CO; Omigbodun AO; Ilesanmi AO
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Feb; 25(2):134-9. PubMed ID: 15814391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial.
Kwon JS; Davies GA; Mackenzie VP
BJOG; 2001 Jan; 108(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 11212999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol for labour induction].
Panelius E; Heikinheimo O; Rahkonen L
Duodecim; 2012; 128(20):2093-102. PubMed ID: 23167168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Maternal and neonatal outcome of labour induction at term comparing two regimens of misoprostol.
Kreft M; Krähenmann F; Roos M; Kurmanavicius J; Zimmermann R; Ochsenbein-Kölble N
J Perinat Med; 2014 Sep; 42(5):603-9. PubMed ID: 24633747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Efficacy comparison of titrated oral solution of misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin on labour induction in women with full-term pregnancy.
Kashanian M; Eshraghi N; Rahimi M; Sheikhansari N; Javanmanesh F
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Jan; 40(1):20-24. PubMed ID: 31195867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.
Paungmora N; Herabutya Y; O-Prasertsawat P; Punyavachira P
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2004 Oct; 30(5):358-62. PubMed ID: 15327448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.
Dadashaliha M; Fallah S; Mirzadeh M
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2021 Oct; 21(1):721. PubMed ID: 34706675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction.
van Gemund N; Scherjon S; LeCessie S; van Leeuwen JH; van Roosmalen J; Kanhai HH
BJOG; 2004 Jan; 111(1):42-9. PubMed ID: 14687051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Oral misoprostol against vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a randomized comparison].
Henrich W; Dudenhausen JW; Hanel C; Chen FC
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol; 2008 Oct; 212(5):183-8. PubMed ID: 18956276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.
Muzonzini G; Hofmeyr GJ
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2004 Oct; 2004(4):CD004221. PubMed ID: 15495088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 microgram intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial.
Rahman H; Pradhan A; Kharka L; Renjhen P; Kar S; Dutta S
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2013 May; 35(5):408-416. PubMed ID: 23756271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Safety and efficacy of oral versus vaginal misoprostol use for induction of labour at term.
Abbassi RM; Sirichand P; Rizvi S
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Oct; 18(10):625-9. PubMed ID: 18940120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Concurrent use of Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.
Lanka S; Surapaneni T; Nirmalan PK
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2014 Jun; 40(6):1527-33. PubMed ID: 24888911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour.
McMaster K; Sanchez-Ramos L; Kaunitz AM
BJOG; 2015 Mar; 122(4):468-76. PubMed ID: 24989790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction.
Prager M; Eneroth-Grimfors E; Edlund M; Marions L
BJOG; 2008 Oct; 115(11):1443-50. PubMed ID: 18715244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
