370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31140585)
1. Labor induction with misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert.
Maggi C; Mazzoni G; Gerosa V; Fratelli N; Prefumo F; Sartori E; Lojacono A
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2019 Oct; 98(10):1268-1273. PubMed ID: 31140585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Wing DA; Brown R; Plante LA; Miller H; Rugarn O; Powers BL
Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Aug; 122(2 Pt 1):201-209. PubMed ID: 23857539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The efficacy of misoprostol vaginal insert compared with oral misoprostol in the induction of labor of nulliparous women: A randomized national multicenter trial.
Hokkila E; Kruit H; Rahkonen L; Timonen S; Mattila M; Laatio L; Ordén MR; Uotila J; Luukkaala T; Tihtonen K
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2019 Aug; 98(8):1032-1039. PubMed ID: 30771243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Misoprostol vaginal insert versus dinoprostone vaginal insert: A comparison of labour and delivery outcomes.
Rankin K; Chodankar R; Raymond K; Bhaskar S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Apr; 235():93-96. PubMed ID: 30122321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study.
Bolla D; Weissleder SV; Radan AP; Gasparri ML; Raio L; Müller M; Surbek D
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2018 May; 18(1):149. PubMed ID: 29747591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Excessive uterine activity accompanying induced labor.
Crane JM; Young DC; Butt KD; Bennett KA; Hutchens D
Obstet Gynecol; 2001 Jun; 97(6):926-31. PubMed ID: 11384698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix.
Du C; Liu Y; Liu Y; Ding H; Zhang R; Tan J
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Jun; 291(6):1221-7. PubMed ID: 25408273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event.
Rugarn O; Tipping D; Powers B; Wing DA
BJOG; 2017 Apr; 124(5):796-803. PubMed ID: 27307397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.
Wing DA; Ortiz-Omphroy G; Paul RH
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Sep; 177(3):612-8. PubMed ID: 9322632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Low-dose vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial.
De Bonrostro Torralba C; Tejero Cabrejas EL; Envid Lázaro BM; Franco Royo MJ; Roca Arquillué M; Campillos Maza JM
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2019 Jul; 98(7):913-919. PubMed ID: 30723912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Facchinetti F; Fontanesi F; Del Giovane C
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2012 Oct; 25(10):1965-9. PubMed ID: 22372421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial.
Sanchez-Ramos L; Peterson DE; Delke I; Gaudier FL; Kaunitz AM
Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Mar; 91(3):401-5. PubMed ID: 9491868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.
Agarwal N; Gupta A; Kriplani A; Bhatla N; Parul
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2003 Jun; 29(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 12841697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Misoprostol: an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction.
Wing DA; Rahall A; Jones MM; Goodwin TM; Paul RH
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Jun; 172(6):1811-6. PubMed ID: 7778637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.
Dällenbach P; Boulvain M; Viardot C; Irion O
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Jan; 188(1):162-7. PubMed ID: 12548212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liu A; Lv J; Hu Y; Lang J; Ma L; Chen W
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2014 Apr; 40(4):897-906. PubMed ID: 24698022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Oxytocin versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor after previous cesarean section: a retrospective comparative study.
Gómez LR; Burgos J; Cobos P; Melchor JC; Osuna C; Centeno Mdel M; Larrieta R; Fernández-Llebrez L; Martínez-Astorquiza T
J Perinat Med; 2011 Jul; 39(4):397-402. PubMed ID: 21604996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
