Question · asked by 1 review
Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly: Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes
- Population
- women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes
- Intervention
- Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly
- Comparison
- oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly
- Outcome
- Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.