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).
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
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献