BMJ  2006;332:509-513 (4 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.38729.513819.63 (published 2 February 2006)

Research

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

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia

Abstract

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 36+6 weeks' gestation, with an indication for prostaglandin induction of labour.

Interventions 20 µg 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.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Listen to the data when results are not significant

Catherine E Hewitt, Natasha Mitchell, and David J Torgerson
BMJ 2008 336: 23-25. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Oral misoprostol is safe for induction of labour at term
BMJ 2006 332: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

Regina Kunz and Andrew D Oxman
BMJ 1998 317: 1185-1190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hewitt, C. E, Mitchell, N., Torgerson, D. J (2008). Listen to the data when results are not significant. BMJ 336: 23-25 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Hand washing

Ian A Laing
bmj.com, 6 Mar 2006 [Full text]

Misoprostol for Induction of Labour; time for the Royal College to respond.

Rajvinder Khasriya, et al.
bmj.com, 20 May 2006 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>