Question · asked by 1 review

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone: Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

Population
women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Intervention
Oral misoprostol
Comparison
vaginal dinoprostone
Outcome
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).
Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.8 [0.6, 1.07]11 studies · 9278 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour
2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.