Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

13 questions · 13 findings · 6 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 7.7%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 15.4%Low 7 · 53.8%Moderate 3 · 23.1%High 0 · 0%

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

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

Metformin vs insulin

Caesarean section · women with type 2 diabetes

Maternal outcomes: oral anti‐diabetic agent (metformin) may leads to lower caesarean section compared with insulin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anti‐diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.73 [0.61, 0.88]
3 studies · 241 participants
Low

Oral mifepristone vs Foley catheter

Caesarean section · pregnant women, 40 weeks' gestation, single cephalic presentation, 1 previous low segment 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

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Caesarean section · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) probably leads to higher caesarean section compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.17 [1.04, 1.32]
7 studies · 3178 participants
Moderate

Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol

Caesarean section · pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).

Amniotic membranes sweeping showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with vaginal/oral misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.82 [0.31, 2.17]
1 study · 96 participants
Low

Metformin vs glibenclamide ‐ maternal outcomes

Caesarean section · women with gestational diabetes mellitus

Metformin showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with glibenclamide ‐ maternal outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anti‐diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.2 [0.83, 1.72]
4 studies · 554 participants
Low

Glibenclamide vs acarbose ‐ maternal outcomes

Caesarean section · women diagnosed with gestational diabetes; 11 to 33 weeks' gestation; singleton pregnancy

Glibenclamide showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with acarbose ‐ maternal outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anti‐diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.53, 1.7]
1 study · 43 participants
Low