229
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Obstetrics

A prospective double blind study using oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction

, &
Pages 461-464 | Published online: 06 Jul 2010
 

Abstract

This prospective double blind study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of oral vs vaginal misoprostol in equivalent doses (50 μg) for induction of labour. A total of 128 term pregnancies with indication for induction of labour were allocated to two groups to receive 50 μg misoprostol orally or vaginally, every 4 h until adequate contractions were achieved or a maximum of 200 μg dose. Induction to delivery interval was significantly shorter in the vaginal group compared with the oral group (14.6 h vs 22.5 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to mode of delivery, neonatal outcome and maternal side-effects. However, the incidence of abnormal contractility pattern was more common in the vaginal group (10/68, 14.6%) as compared with the oral group (4/60, 6.6%) (p = 0.146).

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.