Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Pergialiotis Vasilios,Panagiotopoulos MichailORCID,Constantinou Therapon,Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou Lito,Koumenis Andreas,Stavros Sofoklis,Voskos Andreas,Daskalakis George

Abstract

Abstract Objective Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE1 analogue that is used for induction of labour. Current guidelines support the use of doses that do not exceed 25 mcg in order to limit maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The present meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of oral compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol in terms of induction of labor and adverse peripartum outcomes. Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception till April 2022. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of oral misoprostol (per os or sublingual) compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol. Effect sizes were calculated in R. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of small study effects, p-hacking. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis according to the dose of misoprostol was also investigated. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the risk of bias 2 tool. Quality of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, ranging from very low to high. Results Overall, 57 studies were included that involved 10,975 parturient. Their risk of bias ranged between low-moderate. There were no differences among the routes of intake in terms of successful vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80) and cesarean section rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82, 1.04). Sublingual misoprostol was superior compared to vaginal misoprostol in reducing the interval from induction to delivery (MD – 1.11 h, 95% CI – 2.06, – 0.17). On the other hand, per os misoprostol was inferior compared to vaginal misoprostol in terms of this outcome (MD 3.45 h, 95% CI 1.85, 5.06). Maternal and neonatal morbidity was not affected by the route or dose of misoprostol. Conclusion The findings of our study suggest that oral misoprostol intake is equally safe to vaginal misoprostol in terms of inducing labor at term. Sublingual intake seems to outperform the per os and vaginal routes without increasing the accompanying morbidity. Increasing the dose of misoprostol does not seem to increase its efficacy. Clinical trial registration Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V9JHF).

Funder

University of Athens

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,General Medicine

Reference71 articles.

1. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. 1, BACKGROUND. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK131965/.

2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK (2021) Births: final data for 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep 70:1–51

3. European Perinatal Health Report (2010) Retrieved July 2021

4. ACOG Practice Bulletin No (2009) 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397

5. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S et al (2016) Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess (Winch, Engl) 20:1–584

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3