SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin for the Prevention of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including Individual Participant Data.
Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual participant data meta-analysis tips and tricks: troubleshooting commonly encountered issues of contacting trialists for individual participant data.JBI evidence synthesis · 2026Article
- Data-sharing and trustworthiness of trials evaluating cervical ripening in induction of labour: a meta-epidemiological study of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality. Uterotonics are the mainstay of PPH prevention.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH and to evaluate the trustworthiness of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature meeting the inclusion criteria of RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected by two independent reviewers. Individual participant data (IPD) were meta-analysed for outcomes PPH ≥ 500 and ≥ 1000 mL. RCTs that did not share IPD were classified as trustworthy or not, and aggregate data were meta-analysed according to trustworthiness. MAIN
resultsOf 79 eligible RCTs, 10 (12.7%) provided IPD, of which 6 were included. Analysis of IPD showed PPH ≥ 500 mL to be significantly higher in the misoprostol than in the oxytocin group (2022 participants, aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.43-2.34). For PPH ≥ 1000 mL, analysis of IPD showed that misoprostol and oxytocin were comparable (2022 participants, OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.91). Of the 69 studies that did not provide IPD, 23 (33.3%) were assessed as trustworthy. Analysis of trustworthy data (IPD and 23 aggregate data RCTs) showed no difference between misoprostol and oxytocin for PPH ≥ 500 mL (24 334 participants, OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69-1.49), while misoprostol was associated with a significantly increased risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared to oxytocin (25 249 participants, OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.59).
conclusionsOf 79 RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH, 36.7% met trustworthiness criteria. Oxytocin is comparable to misoprostol for preventing PPH and may be superior for preventing severe PPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.