Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term - Journal of Perinatology - Vol. 34, 2

Choose your font:
✓ Arimo
➡ Merriweather
➡ Mukta Malar
➡ Open Sans Condensed
➡ Rokkitt
➡ Source Sans Pro

✓ English
➡ Français
➡ Português
➡ Español

	Database - (CIANE)
Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website) Currently 3111 records ➡ YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=2769 Created on : 26 Nov 2017 Modified on : 26 Nov 2017	➡ Modify this record Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password! Share: Hard
Bibliographical entry (without author) :	Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term - Journal of Perinatology - Vol. 34, 2 - p.95-99
Author(s) :	Faucett, A.M.; Daniels, K.; Lee, H.C.; El-Sayed, Y.Y.; Blumenfeld, Y.J.
Year of publication :	2014
URL(s) :	https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.… https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.133
Résumé (français) :
Abstract (English) :	Objective:To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women.Study design:Admissions for labor induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes.Result:A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P<0.0001) and were more likely to deliver vaginally in <24 h (47% vs 64%, P=0.001). There was no increase in the rate of cesarean delivery or adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.Conclusion:Labor induction with oral misoprostol resulted in shorter time to vaginal delivery without increased adverse outcomes in nulliparous women. © 2014 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sumário (português) :
Resumen (español) :
Comments :
Argument (français) :
Argument (English):
Argumento (português):
Argumento (español):
Keywords :	➡ induction of labor ; misoprostol (Cytotec)
Author of this record :	Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017

	Discussion (display only in English)

➡ Only identified users Click “login” on the top right to sign in or create your account I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms
[Hide guidelines] ➡ Discussion guidelines 1) Comments aim at clarifying the content of the publication or suggesting links for a better comprehension of its topic 2) All comments are public and opinions expressed belong to their authors 3) Avoid casual talk and personal stories 4) Any off-topic comment or containing inappropriate statements will be deleted without notice

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database created by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) is managed
by Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting CIANE (see below)
(3) or joining any society affiliated with CIANE.
➡ Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
➡ Contact bibli(arobase)ciane.net for more information.

Donating to CIANE (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth