Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

9 questions · 9 findings · 3 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 11.1%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 22.2%Low 4 · 44.4%Moderate 2 · 22.2%High 0 · 0%

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.

Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.86, 1.16]
32 studies · 5914 participants
Low

Oral misoprostol vs placebo/no treatment

Caesarean section · women with ruptured membranes in the third trimester for induction of labour.

Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with placebo/no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.81 [0.59, 1.11]
4 studies · 594 participants
Low

Oral misoprostol vs intravenous (IV) oxytocin

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.

Oral misoprostol probably leads to lower caesarean section compared with intravenous oxytocin (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.67 [0.5, 0.9]
6 studies · 737 participants
Moderate

Oral misoprostol vs mechanical methods

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.

Oral misoprostol may leads to lower caesarean section compared with mechanical methods (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.84 [0.75, 0.95]
6 studies · 2993 participants
Low

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.

Oral misoprostol probably leads to lower caesarean section compared with vaginal dinoprostone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.84 [0.78, 0.9]
13 studies · 9676 participants
Moderate

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly changes caesarean section compared with oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.31 [0.77, 2.22]
1 study · 64 participants
Very low

Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated vs oral misoprostol 25 µg two‐hourly static

Caesarean section · induction of labour.

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated changes caesarean section compared with oral misoprostol 25 µg two‐hourly static (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.66 [0.63, 4.32]
2 studies · 296 participants
Very low

Vaginal misoprostol vs placebo

Caesarean section · women requiring induction of labour

Vaginal misoprostol showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.94 [0.61, 1.46]
4 studies · 325 participants
Low

Vaginal misoprostol vs intravenous (IV) oxytocin

Caesarean section · women with a previous caesarean section

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found