MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/bmj.38729.513819.63

Медицинская библиотека · BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour at term: randomised controlled trial.

Dodd Jodie M, Crowther Caroline A, Robinson Jeffrey S

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To compare oral misoprostol solution with vaginal prostaglandin gel (dinoprostone) for induction of labour at term to determine whether misoprostol is superior.

DESIGN

Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

Maternity departments in three hospitals in Australia. Population Pregnant women with a singleton cephalic presentation at > or = 36+6 weeks' gestation, with an indication for prostaglandin induction of labour.

INTERVENTIONS: 20 mug oral misoprostol solution at ourly intervals and placebo vaginal gel or vaginal dinoprostone gel at six hourly intervals and placebo oral solution.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaginal birth within 24 hours; uterine hyperstimulation with associated changes in fetal heart rate; caesarean section (all); and caesarean section for fetal distress.

RESULTS

741 women were randomised, 365 to the misoprostol group and 376 to the vaginal dinoprostone group. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the primary outcomes: vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours (misoprostol 168/365 (46.0%) v dinoprostone 155/376 (41.2%); relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.32; P = 0.134), caesarean section (83/365 (22.7%) v 100/376 (26.6%); 0.82, 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.127), caesarean section for fetal distress (32/365 (8.8%) v 35/376 (9.3%); 0.91, 0.57 to 1.44; P = 0.679), or uterine hyperstimulation with changes in fetal heart rate (3/365 (0.8%) v 6/376 (1.6%); 0.55, 0.14 to 2.21; P = 0.401). Although there were differences in the process of labour induction, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial shows no evidence that oral misoprostol is superior to vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labour. However, it does not lead to poorer health outcomes for women or their infants, and oral treatment is preferred by women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Health and Medical Research Council, Perinatal Trials, PT0361.

Для цитирования: Dodd Jodie M, Crowther Caroline A, Robinson Jeffrey S. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour at term: randomised controlled trial.. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2006. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38729.513819.63.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.