These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labor.
    Author: Nunes F, Rodrigues R, Meirinho M.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Sep; 181(3):626-9. PubMed ID: 10486474.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]