Source | Location and Type of Study | Intervention | Stillbirths/Perinatal Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Reviews and meta-analyses | |||
Kelly et al. 2003 [90] | UK, Austria, New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Pakistan, Canada. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 8 RCTs included (N = 3648 women). | To compare the effects of vaginal prostaglandins E2 (all regimens) for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour (intervention) vs. placebo/no treatment (controls). | PMR: RR = 0.56 (95% CI: 0.14–2.22) [NS]. [2/1833 vs. 4/1815 in the intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Boulvain et al. 2008 [62] | USA, Europe, Africa, UK, Italy. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 4 RCTs included (N = 1081 women). | Compared the impact on perinatal mortality of intracervical prostaglandin (prostaglandin E2) (intervention) vs. placebo/no treatment (controls) for third trimester cervical ripening and induction of labour. | PMR: RR = 0.20 (95% CI: 0.01–4.05) [NS]. [0/587 vs. 2/494 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Hutton et al. 2001 [92] | 2 RCTs. Zimbabwe, Australia. Cochrane review. 2 RCTs included (N = 25 women). | To assess the effects of extra-amniotic prostaglandin (PGF2 alpha) (intervention) for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour vs. extra amniotic placebo gel (controls). | PMR: RR = 2.06 (95% CI: 0.09–46.11) [NS]. [1/15 vs. 0/10 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Hofmeyr et al. 2003 [79] | Chile, Zimbabwe, USA, Canada, Jamaica, Malaysia. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 7 RCTs included (N = 268 women). | To assess the effects of vaginal misoprostol for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour (intervention) vs. vaginal prostaglandin (controls). | PMR: RR = 2.85 (95% CI: 0.12–68.95) [NS]. [1/136 vs. 0/132 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Neilson 2000 [94] | France, Sweden. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 2 RCTs included (N = 68 women). | To assess the effects of mifepristone (all doses) for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour (intervention) vs. placebo/no treatment (controls). | PMR: RR not estimable. [0/40 vs. 0/28 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
French 2001 [89] | India, Denmark. Cochrane review. 2 RCTs included (N = 35 women). | To assess the effects of oral prostaglandin E2 for third trimester induction of labour (intervention) vs. intravenous oxytocin (controls) on perinatal mortality. | PMR: RR not estimable. [0/15 vs. 0/20 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Luckas et al. 2000 [93] | USA, UK, Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 11 RCTs included (N = 990 women). | To assess the effects of intravenous prostaglandin for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour (intervention) vs. IV oxytocin (controls). | PMR: RR = 3.59 (95% CI: 0.60–21.53) [NS]. [4/499 vs. 0/491 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Alfirevic 2006 [75] | Hong Kong, Switzerland, South Africa, UK, Spain, Canada, USA. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 17 RCTs included (N = 1508 women). | To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol used for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy (intervention) vs. vaginal prostaglandin (controls). | PMR: RR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.08–4.50) [NS]. [data from 4 RCTs; 1/756 vs. 2/752 in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |
Intervention studies | |||
Elhassan et al. 2005 [85] | Sudan. Non-blinded RCT. N = 140 patients (N = 70 intervention, N = 70 controls). | Assessed the impact of vaginal misoprostol, 50 μg, six hourly until initiation of labour or maximum of 4 doses (intervention) vs. IV infusion of oxytocin at 2 mU/min, doubled at 30-minute intervals until the appropriate contraction pattern obtained or dose increased to a maximum of 20 mU/minute and maintained as such (controls). | Neonatal outcomes (birth weight, Apgar score and SBR): [NS] |
Garry et al. 2003 [80] | USA. RCT. Singleton gestations (N = 200) with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labour. | Compared the impact of 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol every 3 h (intervention) vs. a 10-mg prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h (controls). | Neonatal outcomes: [NS] Vaginal delivery <12 hr: 44% vs. 12% in misoprostol vs. prostaglandin E2 group, respectively (P < 0.0001) Vaginal delivery <24 hr: 68% vs. 38 in misoprostol vs. prostaglandin E2 group, respectively (P < 0.001). Caesarean delivery for fetal distress: 71.4% (20/28) vs. 40% (14/35) in misoprostol group vs. prostaglandin E2 group (P = 0.03). |
Jindal et al. 2007. [87] | India. Quasi-RCT. N = 100 women (N = 50 intervention group, N = 50 controls). | Compared the impact of 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol 4 hourly for a maximum of six doses (intervention) vs. transcervical Foley catheter with simultaneous intravenous oxytocin (controls). | SBR: 1/50 vs. 0/50 in intervention and control groups, respectively. |
Lokugamage et al. 2003 [81] | UK. Hospital based. RCT. N = 191 patients. | Compared the impact of 50 μg vaginal misoprostol initially then a further identical dose 6 hrs later (intervention) vs. 2 mg vaginal prostaglandin E2 initially followed by 1 mg 6 hrs later, over a period of 24 hrs (controls). All participants not in labour after 24 hrs received prostaglandin E2 alone as per hospital protocol. | Neonatal outcome: [NS] Induction-to-delivery interval: 1047 vs. 1355 min (P = 0.01) in intervention and control groups, respectively. Delivery <12 hrs: 35.4% vs. 18.9%, (P = 0.02) in intervention and control groups, respectively. Delivery <24 hrs: 83.3% vs. 63.3%, (P = 0.01) in intervention and control groups, respectively. Oxytocin augmentation: [NS] (P = 0.47), Tachysystole: [NS] (P = 0.32) and Hyperstimulation syndrome: [NS] (P = 0.82). |
Majoko et al. 2002 [151] | Zimbabwe. RCT. N = 152 women admitted for induction of labour (N = 76 in each group). | Compared the impact of vaginal misoprostol (intervention) versus extra-amniotic prostaglandin F2α gel (controls). | SBR: 1/76 in each group due to asphyxia (both mothers induced for pre-eclampsia; deaths resulting from inadequate response to fetal distress). |
Meyer et al. 2005 [86] | USA. RCT. N = 84 patients. | Compared the impact of 0.25μg misoprostol vaginally (intervention) vs. 0.5 mg prostaglandin E2 gel intracervically (controls), the evening before oxytocin induction. | Neonatal outcome: [NS] Caesarean rate: 9/42 vs. 8/42 in intervention and control groups, respectively [NS] |
Papanikolaou et al. 2004 [84] | Greece. RCT. Nulliparous pregnant women (N = 163) with an unfavorable cervix and > 285 days of gestation (N = 80 intervention group, N = 83 controls). | Compared the efficacy of 50 μg vaginal misoprostol (intervention) versus 3 mg prostaglandin E2 (controls), administered every 9 hrs for a maximum of three doses for elective induction of labour. | SBR or PMR: 0/80 vs. 1/83 (1.2%) in intervention and control groups, respectively [NS]. |
Rowlands et al. 2001 [83] | Australia. RCT. N = 126 women recruited to the study (N = 63 in each group). | Compared the effect on neonatal outcomes of vaginal prostaglandin E2 (group 1) vs. vaginal misoprostol (controls) for cervical priming prior to induction of labour. | Neonatal outcome (low cord pH, Apgar score at delivery or admission to the neonatal special care nursery): [NS] |
Sahin et al. 2002 [88] | Turkey. RCT. N = 100 pre-eclamptic women with a modified Bishop score of = 4 (N = 50 in each group). | Compared the impact of 50 μg vaginal misoprostol 4 times at 4 hour intervals (intervention) vs. oxytocin infusion for induction of labour starting from 1 mIU/per min, increasing it every 30 min with 2 mIU/min increments up to maximum of 30 mIU/min (controls). | Intrapartum SB: 0/50 in both groups. |
Sahraoui et al. 2005 [91] | Tunisia. RCT. All uncomplicated pregnancies that reached 41 weeks'gestation with a Bishop score of < or = 4. | Compared the impact on fetal outcomes of cervical prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening (intervention) vs. control. | Caesarean rates: [NS] Rates of admission into the neonatal unit and fetal outcomes: [NS] |
Van Gemud et al. 2004 [82] | The Netherlands. Labour wards of one university hospital and two teaching hospitals. RCT. Women (N = 681) with indication for labour induction at > or = 36 weeks of gestation, singleton pregnancy and no previous Caesarean section. | Compared the impact on pregnancy outcomes of misoprostol (25 mcg, hospital-prepared capsule) in the posterior vaginal fornix, every four hours, maximum three times daily (intervention) vs. prostaglandin E2 gel every four hours (controls). Oxytocin was administered if necessary | Neonatal deaths: (excluding malformations): 0 in both groups. Adverse neonatal outcome: 21% vs. 23% in intervention and control groups, respectively [NS]. Median induction-delivery interval: 25 vs. 19 h in intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.008). Caesarean rate: RR = 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6–1.04) [NS]. [16.1% vs. 21% in intervention and control groups, respectively]. Admission to NICU: RR = 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5–0.98). [19% vs. 26% in intervention and control groups, respectively]. |