Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41206516›Full record

SynthesisUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026

Oral misoprostol (PGE1) vs vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for labor induction: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

S Y Tan, N Au, M D Peel, J M Dodd, A Deussen, P A Le Roux, D C Young, F Tessier, P Dallenbäch, D M R Croll and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

S Y TanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-8358-1640
N AuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
M D PeelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
J M DoddDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6363-4874
A DeussenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia.
P A Le RouxDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
D C YoungDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada.
F TessierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
P DallenbächDepartment of Paediatrics, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
D M R CrollWilhelmina Children's Hospital Birth Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M PatabendigeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
K PalmerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
W LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8980-0909
B W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1176437National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2016729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone for the induction of labor (IOL) using an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

methodsWe used a Cochrane review and searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone for IOL in viable singleton pregnancies. We invited the authors of eligible trials to share their anonymized data. Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. IPD meta-analysis was conducted using a two-stage random-effects model. An intention-to-treat approach was used for all analyses. Aggregate-data meta-analysis was undertaken with RCTs stratified by Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) score.

resultsOf 18 eligible RCTs, eight provided IPD, of which five (1892 participants) met the TRACT criteria. IPD meta-analysis showed similar rates of vaginal delivery after IOL with oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone (odds ratio (OR), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.80-1.22); I

conclusionIOL with oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone results in comparable rates of vaginal delivery and composite perinatal and maternal adverse outcomes. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

DinoprostoneLabor, InducedMisoprostolOxytocicsAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDinoprostoneMisoprostolOxytocicsdinoprostoneindividual participant datainduction of labormisoprostolPGE1PGE2safetysystematic reviewvaginal delivery

Identifiers

PMID41206516
PMCPMC13136056

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.