ScholarLens Back to search
1994•PubMedRequires access

Intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor-inducing agents.

Horace Fletcher, Simon J Mitchell, Jane Frederick, D. Simeon, Douglas Brown

Open publisher page 105 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) and misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) for ripening the cervix and inducing labor at term. METHODS: Sixty-three women were randomized to receive 100 micrograms misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone, both as intravaginal tablets. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the groups for pre-induction status. The mean Bishop scores before drug insertion were almost identical. Twelve hours after insertion, the mean change in the Bishop score was significantly higher in those receiving misoprostol (5.0 versus 3.3) (P = .008). However, there were no significant differences in induction-to-delivery interval, spontaneous labor rates, type of delivery, fetal outcome, or maternal complications. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for inducing labor at term.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) and misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) for ripening the cervix and inducing labor at term. METHODS: Sixty-three women were randomized to receive 100 micrograms misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone, both as intravaginal tablets. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the groups for pre-induction status. The mean Bishop scores before drug insertion were almost identical. Twelve hours after insertion, the mean change in the Bishop score was significantly higher in those receiving misoprostol (5.0 versus 3.3) (P = .008). However, there were no significant differences in induction-to-delivery interval, spontaneous labor rates, type of delivery, fetal outcome, or maternal complications. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for inducing labor at term.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 105 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) and misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) for ripening the cervix and inducing labor at term. METHODS: Sixty-three women were randomized to receive 100 micrograms misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone, both as intravaginal tablets. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the groups for pre-induction status. The mean Bishop scores before drug insertion were almost identical. Twelve hours after insertion, the mean change in the Bishop score was significantly higher in those receiving misoprostol (5.0 versus 3.3) (P = .008). However, there were no significant differences in induction-to-delivery interval, spontaneous labor rates, type of delivery, fetal outcome, or maternal complications. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for inducing labor at term.

Key concepts: Misoprostol, Dinoprostone, Medicine, Labor induction, Bishop score, Cervix, Obstetrics, Induction of labor

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor-inducing agents. — Research Paper | ScholarLens