IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • David C Young
  • Tina Delaney
  • B Anthony Armson
  • Cora Fanning

Abstract

Objective: To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction. Materials and methods: Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with α2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births. Results: Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, χ2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH

Suggested Citation

  • David C Young & Tina Delaney & B Anthony Armson & Cora Fanning, 2020. "Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227245
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227245
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227245&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erich Lehmann, 2009. "Parametric versus nonparametrics: two alternative methodologies," Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 397-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Neuh�user, 2015. "Combining the t test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(12), pages 2769-2775, December.
    2. Amitava Mukherjee & Marco Marozzi, 2019. "A class of percentile modified Lepage-type tests," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 82(6), pages 657-689, August.
    3. repec:sip:wpaper:12-026 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.