Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Titrated oral misoprostol for augmenting labour to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes

  1. Joshua P Vogel1,2,*,
  2. Helen M West3,
  3. Therese Dowswell3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Published Online: 23 SEP 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 29 JUL 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010648.pub2


How to Cite

Vogel JP, West HM, Dowswell T. Titrated oral misoprostol for augmenting labour to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD010648. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010648.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    World Health Organization, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/Word Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Geneva, Switzerland

  2. 2

    University of Western Australia, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

  3. 3

    The University of Liverpool, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Liverpool, UK

*Joshua P Vogel, vogeljo@who.int. josh.vogel00@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 23 SEP 2013

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

Labour dystocia (or difficult labour) is characterised by abnormally slow progress of labour. It can be due to one or more causes, including abnormalities of uterine contractility or the maternal bony pelvis and soft tissues, as well as abnormal fetal presentation, position or development (Neilson 2003). A slow labour does not necessitate a diagnosis of labour dystocia.

Labour dystocia is associated with a number of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. It can result in a traumatic birth experience (Nystedt 2005), and may lead to fetal distress requiring operative birth, either by emergency caesarean section (CS) or vaginal instrumental birth (Neilson 2003; Selin 2008). It may result in perinatal or maternal morbidity or mortality (Kjaergaard 2009), especially in settings where emergency CS is not widely available (Buchmann 2006; McClure 2006). There is no universally accepted definition of labour dystocia and criteria often vary between studies; however, studies in high-resource countries report a high incidence of births complicated by dystocia (e.g. 37% in a sample of 2810 healthy, term nulliparas with no indication for induction or elective CS (Kjaergaard 2008), and 21% in a sample of 1480 deliveries (Selin 2008)).

Of the 3.2 million stillbirths that occur annually, 32% (1.02 million) are intrapartum (occur during labour or delivery) (Yakoob 2010), and intrapartum complications, such as malpresentation or obstructed labour, are by far the most predictive factors for perinatal mortality, and may increase the risk for perinatal death by up to a factor of 85 in low- and middle- income countries (Lawn 2009). McClure 2006 et al reported that in six countries with low availability of CS, the most important cause of stillbirth was obstructed or prolonged labour with associated asphyxia, infection and birth injury.

Inadequate uterine contractions, fetal malposition, or cephalopelvic disproportion (baby's head/body too large to fit through pelvis) may cause labour dystocia (Shields 2007). Nulliparous women have slower labour progression than multiparous women (Vahratian 2006), and those who are overweight experience a slower first and second stage of labour compared with women of normal weight (Vahratian 2004). Other factors associated with increased risk of prolonged labour include advanced maternal age (Kalogiannidis 2011; Sheiner 2002), especially older primagravidas (Kalogiannidis 2011); multiparity with no previous vaginal birth; gestational age over 42 weeks (Selin 2008); obesity (Vahratian 2004); epidural analgesia (Kjaergaard 2008; O'Hana 2008; Selin 2008; Sheiner 2002); female circumcision (Chibber 2011); vitamin D deficiency (Scholl 2012); infertility treatment; induction of labour; prelabour rupture of membranes; hypertensive disorders; hydramnios (too much amniotic fluid); gestational diabetes (Sheiner 2002); early admission to a labour unit (Kjaergaard 2008); macrosomia (large baby) (Hogberg 2000; Selin 2008); occipitoposterior (back-to-back) position (Shields 2007); short maternal stature (Piper 1991; Sheiner 2007); and high levels of stress hormones in the mother (Lederman 1978).

 

Description of the intervention

Augmentation of labour is a commonly used intervention globally in cases of labour dystocia; Lovold 2008 identified augmentation rates of 2.5% to 32.9% in provinces of 11 lower-income countries. In high-income settings, labour dystocia is generally managed using a titrated intravenous oxytocin regimen via a regulatory infusion pump with continuous fetal monitoring (Lovold 2008). However, many facilities in low-income settings face significant hurdles in the availability of appropriately trained staff, adequate patient supervision, fetal monitoring and the availability and use of clinical practice guidelines (Simpson 2003). The quality of oxytocin may be poor (Stanton 2012), or may be administered without the aid of infusion pumps or fetal monitoring (Lovold 2008). Oxytocin misuse increases the risk of ruptured uterus, fetal asphyxia and fetal death (Konje 1990; Lovold 2008).

Misoprostol is an inexpensive and stable prostaglandin E1 analogue that can be administered orally, vaginally, sublingually or rectally (Weeks 2005). It has proven to be effective at stimulating uterine contractions (Norman 1991), even at low doses (Kundodyiwa 2009). As a prostaglandin analogue, misoprostol has ubiquitous effects on many organ systems (Hofmeyr 2011). The side-effects of misoprostol include pyrexia (fever) and shivering, hyperpyrexia (which may be life-threatening), decrease in heart rate, uterine hyperstimulation and uterine rupture (Hofmeyr 2010; Hofmeyr 2013; Tang 2007).

While originally marketed for the prevention and treatment of gastric ulcers, misoprostol has a wide range of obstetric applications (Blanchard 2002). The low cost, heat stability, ease of administration and storage of misoprostol are advantageous in many low-resource settings over other oxytocics (Blanchard 2002). The obstetric applications of misoprostol include induction and augmentation of labour, prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, evacuation of the uterus after pregnancy failure and induced abortion (Hofmeyr 2011; Weeks 2007). Despite this, only a small number of countries have licensed misoprostol for obstetric use (Weeks 2005). There is no guidance provided by manufacturers regarding safe and appropriate dosage in obstetric situations (Friedman 2001).

Administered orally or vaginally, misoprostol is effective for the induction of labour (Margulies 1992), though it poses certain risks (Hofmeyr 1999; Kundodyiwa 2009). A Cochrane review of misoprostol use for cervical ripening and labour induction concluded that it is more effective than conventional methods (Hofmeyr 2010); however, limitations in the evidence mean that the possibility of uncommon serious adverse effects cannot be excluded. Specifically, the studies reviewed were not large enough to conclude whether misoprostol use could cause an unacceptably high number of serious adverse events including uterine rupture and asphyxial fetal deaths. Oral administration of misoprostol has been shown to have similar safety and efficacy to vaginally-administered misoprostol for induction of labour (Abbassi 2008; Uludag 2005), but oral misoprostol performed better in terms of treatment interval and number of doses required (Abbassi 2008), and is preferred by women (Nassar 2007).

Titration refers to the process of adjusting the dose, frequency - or both - of a medication on the basis of frequent review to achieve optimal outcomes. Titration regimens have the advantage of potentially avoiding adverse outcomes, by using smaller doses, and dosing only as required. Titration of oral misoprostol for labour induction using a misoprostol solution was a pioneered by Hofmeyr and colleagues (Hofmeyr 2001a), and several studies have reported on a range of misoprostol titration regimens for labour induction (Bricker 2008; Cheng 2006; Cheng 2008; Cheng 2010; Ho 2010; Matonhodze 2003; Souza 2010; Thaisomboon 2012; Zvandasara 2008). Given the efficacy of oral misoprostol for augmentation of labour (Bleich 2011), efforts have been made to identify a safe and effective titration regimen for using misoprostol for this purpose (Ho 2010; Villano 2011).

 

Why it is important to do this review

There is already evidence about other pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of augmenting labour. Methods vary in effectiveness, and some methods may be more appropriate for use in high- or low-resource settings, either because of cost, availability or resources. As an inexpensive drug that does not need refrigeration and can be administered orally, misoprostol may offer an alternative to other commonly-used augmentation agents. Titration regimens using oral misoprostol have now been examined in trials, so this review fills a gap in the evidence.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms

To examine the effects and safety of titrated oral misoprostol compared with placebo, oxytocin, other interventions for augmentation of labour, or no active treatment, in women with dystocia.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Randomised trials (including quasi-randomised trials where allocation is not truly random, for example, alternative allocation).

We planned to include trials with either individual- or cluster-randomisation. In this version of the review we did not identify any cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies reported in published abstracts provided that there was sufficient information to assess risk of bias, and results were reported by randomisation group.

 

Types of participants

Women in labour with dystocia requiring labour augmentation (as defined by trialists). We included trials including nulliparous or multiparous women, or both. We did not plan to exclude trials that included women with pregnancy complications recruited as part of broader populations, but we have not included trials focusing specifically on high-risk groups.

 

Types of interventions

We planned to include trials comparing titrated oral misoprostol with:

  1. placebo;
  2. other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. oxytocin, other prostaglandins);
  3. no treatment.

If data were available, we also planned to compare titrated oral misoprostol with other regimens of misoprostol but no such trials were identified in this version of the review. If, in future updates, we identify trials where titrated misoprostol is used with other interventions (e.g. amniotomy), including induction of labour regimens, we will include the trial, provided women in both the intervention and control arms received the same co-intervention.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  1. Maternal death or severe morbidity (e.g. ruptured uterus, admission to intensive care unit, septicaemia, organ failure).
  2. Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes.
  3. Perinatal death (stillbirth and neonatal death).

 

Secondary outcomes

 
Maternal

  1. Maternal mortality.
  2. Serious maternal morbidity (e.g. ruptured uterus, admission to intensive care unit, septicaemia, organ failure).
  3. Duration of labour.
  4. Caesarean section.
  5. Caesarean section for fetal distress.
  6. Instrumental birth.
  7. Caesarean section for prolonged labour.
  8. Duration of first stage of labour.
  9. Duration of second stage of labour.
  10. Postpartum haemorrhage (as defined by trialists).
  11. Hyperstimulation of labour.
  12. Diagnosis of chorioamnionitis (inflammation of the fetal membranes).
  13. Episiotomy.
  14. 2nd or 3rd degree perineal tear.
  15. Breastfeeding.
  16. Maternal satisfaction with care in labour.
  17. Postnatal depression.
  18. Vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours of onset of labour.

 
Fetal/neonatal

  1. Fetal intrapartum death.
  2. Early neonatal death.
  3. Birth trauma (e.g. Erb's palsy, fractured skull, cephalhaematoma, fractured clavicle).
  4. pH of arterial cord blood less than 7.0.
  5. Neonatal morbidity, excluding malformations (e.g. seizures, birth asphyxia, neonatal encephalopathy, infection requiring antibiotics).
  6. Need for intubation at birth.
  7. Childhood disability.
  8. Apgar score less than seven at five minutes.
  9. Admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
  10. Duration of hospital stay.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We asked the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group to search the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register. Date of search: 29 May 2013.

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register is maintained by the Trials Search Co-ordinator and contains trials identified from:

  1. monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);
  2. weekly searches of MEDLINE;
  3. weekly searches of Embase;
  4. handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major conferences;
  5. weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals, plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts.

Details of the search strategies for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service can be found in the ‘Specialized Register’ section within the editorial information about the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.

Trials identified through the searching activities described above are each assigned to a review topic (or topics). The Trials Search Co-ordinator searches the register for each review using the topic list rather than keywords.

 

Searching other resources

In addition, we searched the reference lists of reports identified by the search.

We did not apply any language restrictions.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two review authors assessed eligibility for inclusion by independently examining all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third person.

We created a study flow diagram to map out the number of records identified, included and excluded.

 

Data extraction and management

We designed a form to extract data. For eligible studies, at least two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third person. We entered data into Review Manager software (RevMan 2012), and checked for accuracy.

If information regarding any of the above was unclear, we planned to contact authors of the original reports to request that they provide further details.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We resolved any disagreement by discussion or by involving a third assessor.

 

(1) Random sequence generation (checking for possible selection bias)

For each included study, we describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.

We assessed the method as:

  • low risk of bias (any truly random process, e.g. random number table; computer random number generator);
  • high risk of bias (any non-random process, e.g. odd or even date of birth; hospital or clinic record number);
  • unclear risk of bias.

 

(2) Allocation concealment (checking for possible selection bias)

For each included study, we describe the method used to conceal allocation to interventions prior to assignment, and assessed whether intervention allocation could have been foreseen in advance of, or during recruitment, or changed after assignment.

We assessed the methods as:

  • low risk of bias (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes);
  • high risk of bias (open random allocation; unsealed or non-opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth);
  • unclear risk of bias.

 

(3.1) Blinding of participants and personnel (checking for possible performance bias)

For each included study, we describe the methods used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We considered that studies were at low risk of bias if they were blinded, or if we judged that the lack of blinding would be unlikely to affect results. We assessed blinding separately for different outcomes or classes of outcomes.

We assessed the methods as:

  • low, high or unclear risk of bias for participants;
  • low, high or unclear risk of bias for personnel.

 

(3.2) Blinding of outcome assessment (checking for possible detection bias)

For each included study, we describe the methods used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We assessed blinding separately for different outcomes or classes of outcomes.

We assessed methods used to blind outcome assessment as low, high or unclear risk of bias.

 

(4) Incomplete outcome data (checking for possible attrition bias due to the amount, nature and handling of incomplete outcome data)

For each included study and each outcome or class of outcomes, we describe the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. We state whether attrition and exclusions were reported, and the numbers included in the analysis at each stage (compared with the total randomised participants), reasons for attrition or exclusion where reported, and whether missing data were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where sufficient information was reported, or supplied by the trial authors, we planned to re-include missing data in the analyses.

We assessed methods as:

  • low risk of bias (e.g. no missing outcome data; missing outcome data balanced across groups);
  • high risk of bias (e.g. numbers or reasons for missing data imbalanced across groups; ‘as treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of intervention received from that assigned at randomisation);
  • unclear risk of bias.

 

(5) Selective reporting (checking for reporting bias)

For each included study, we describe how we investigated the possibility of selective outcome reporting bias and what we found.

We assessed the methods as:

  • low risk of bias (where it is clear that all of the study’s pre-specified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported);
  • high risk of bias (where not all the study’s pre-specified outcomes have been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified; outcomes of interest are reported incompletely and so cannot be used; or study failed to include results of a key outcome that would have been expected to have been reported);
  • unclear risk of bias.

 

(6) Other bias (checking for bias due to problems not covered by (1) to (5) above)

For each included study, we describe any important concerns we have about other possible sources of bias.

We assessed whether each study was free of other problems that could put it at risk of bias and assess each as:

  • low risk of other bias;
  • high risk of other bias;
  • unclear whether there is risk of other bias.

 

(7) Overall risk of bias

We have made explicit judgements about whether studies are at high risk of bias, according to the criteria given in the Handbook (Higgins 2011). With reference to (1) to (6) above, we assessed the likely magnitude and direction of the bias and whether we considered it was likely to impact on the findings. We planned to explore the impact of the level of bias through undertaking sensitivity analyses - see Sensitivity analysis.

 

Measures of treatment effect

 

Dichotomous data

For dichotomous data, we present results as summary risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

 

Continuous data

For continuous data, we present the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. In this version of the review, we have not pooled any findings from trials but in future updates we will use the mean difference to combine findings from trials provided outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. We will use the standardised mean difference to combine trials that measure the same outcome, but use different methods to do so.

 

Unit of analysis issues

 

Cluster-randomised trials

We did not identify any cluster-randomised trials in this version of the review. In future updates, if such trials are identified, we will include cluster-randomised trials in the analyses along with individually-randomised trials. We will adjust their sample sizes using the methods described in the Handbook (Higgins 2011), using an estimate of the intracluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) derived from the trial (if possible), from a similar trial or from a study of a similar population. If we use ICCs from other sources, we will report this and conduct sensitivity analyses to investigate the effect of variation in the ICC. If we identify both cluster-randomised trials and individually-randomised trials, we plan to synthesise the relevant information. We will consider it reasonable to combine the results from both if there is little heterogeneity between the study designs and the interaction between the effect of intervention and the choice of randomisation unit is considered to be unlikely.

We will also acknowledge heterogeneity in the randomisation unit and perform a sensitivity analysis to investigate the effects of the randomisation unit.

 

Cross-over trials

Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion; this is not a suitable design for this type of intervention in labour.

 

Other unit of analysis issues

If we had identified any trials with more than two arms (multi-arm trials), we planned to include as many data as are relevant to the scope of the review. If such trials are identified when we update the review, where appropriate, we will combine arms (using the methods described in the Handbook (Higgins 2011)) to create a single pair-wise comparison. If it is not appropriate to combine experimental arms, we will present results separately for each arm, sharing results for the control arm between each to avoid double counting (for dichotomous outcomes we will divide the number of events and total sample by two; for continuous outcomes we will assume the same mean and standard deviation but halve the control sample size for each comparison).

 

Dealing with missing data

For included studies, we noted levels of attrition. We planned to explore the impact of including studies with high levels of missing data in the overall assessment of treatment effect by using sensitivity analysis; in this version of the review we did not carry out any meta-analysis and only two trials were included so we did not carry out this planned sensitivity analysis.

For all outcomes, we carried out analyses, as far as possible, on an intention-to-treat basis, i.e. we attempted to include all participants randomised to each group in the analyses, and all participants were analysed in the group to which they were allocated, regardless of whether or not they received the allocated intervention. The denominator for each outcome in each trial was the number randomised minus any participants whose outcomes were known to be missing.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

If we had combined trials in the meta-analysis, we planned to assess statistical heterogeneity using the T², I² and Chi² statistics. If we carry out meta-analysis in updates, we will regard heterogeneity as substantial if an I² is greater than 30% and either the T² is greater than zero, or there is a low P value (less than 0.10) in the Chi² test for heterogeneity.

 

Assessment of reporting biases

If in future updates there are 10 or more studies in the meta-analysis, we will investigate reporting biases (such as publication bias) using funnel plots. We will assess funnel plot asymmetry visually. If asymmetry is suggested by a visual assessment, we will perform exploratory analyses to investigate it.

 

Data synthesis

We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 2012). If in future updates we carry out any meta-analysis we will use fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining data where it is reasonable to assume that studies are estimating the same underlying treatment effect: i.e. where trials are examining the same intervention, and the trials’ populations and methods are judged to be sufficiently similar. If there is clinical heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differ between trials, or if substantial statistical heterogeneity is detected, we will use random-effects meta-analysis to produce an overall summary where an average treatment effect across trials is considered clinically meaningful. The random-effects summary will be treated as the average range of possible treatment effects, and we will discuss the clinical implications of treatment effects differing between trials. If the average treatment effect is not clinically meaningful, we will not combine trials.

If we use random-effects analyses, the results will be presented as the average treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals, and the estimates of T² and I².

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If in future updates we identify substantial heterogeneity, we will investigate it using subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. We will consider whether an overall summary is meaningful and, if it is, use random-effects analysis to produce it.

We plan to carry out the following subgroup analyses:

  • by parity (primiparous versus multiparous);
  • by dose (low-dose versus higher-dose titration);
  • by whether titrated oral misoprostol is used as part of a labour induction regimen versus women in spontaneous labour.

We will examine only our primary outcomes in subgroup analysis.

We will assess subgroup differences by interaction tests available within RevMan (RevMan 2012). We will report the results of subgroup analyses quoting the χ2 statistic and P value, and the interaction test I² value.

 

Sensitivity analysis

If we had included cluster-randomised trials in the review, we planned to carry out sensitivity analysis. We also planned sensitivity analysis according to trial quality; temporarily excluding trials at high risk of bias due to inadequate allocation concealment to explore whether this has any impact on the direction or size of the effect estimate. In this version of the review we did not carry out any sensitivity analysis as insufficient data were available and we did not carry out meta-analysis. If more data are included in updates, we will carry out planned sensitivity analysis using our primary outcomes only.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The search strategy identified four reports for possible inclusion in the review. We examined the reference lists of these four reports and did not identify any further studies for inclusion. After assessing eligibility, we included two trials and excluded one. One report was a trial registration for an ongoing study (Aalami-Harandi 2009) and we have contacted the authors for more information. Details of all trials identified by the search are set out in tables (Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies).

 

Included studies

Two trials examined oral misoprostol to augment labour.

In a trial carried out in Taiwan between 2008 and 2009, 231 women were randomised to receive either titrated oral misoprostol or usual care (intravenous (IV) oxytocin) according to the hospital protocol (Ho 2010). Women recruited to the trial were in spontaneous labour with inadequate uterine contractions requiring augmentation. The misoprostol was prepared by dissolving a 200 microgram (mcg) tablet in tap water. Women in the misoprostol group were randomised to receive an initial dose of 20 mcg of misoprostol (in 20 mL of water) repeated every hour up to four hours, after which the dose was increased to 40 mcg per hour up to a maximum total dose of 1600 mcg. Women in both arms of the trial were monitored for signs of fetal distress or uterine hyperstimulation. All but three of the women randomised received the intended treatment. The primary outcomes in this study were duration of labour from the start of augmentation, vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours, incidence of tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation, and non-reassuring fetal heart rate.

In the second trial, carried out in the USA between 2008 and 2011, 350 mainly Hispanic women were recruited (Bleich 2011). All women were in spontaneous labour with ruptured membranes requiring labour augmentation for slow progress. Women were randomised to receive either oral misoprostol or usual care (IV oxytocin). In this study the dose was not strictly titrated as in the Ho 2010 trial, however, in view of the paucity of data on oral misoprostol for augmentation, we decided to include results from this trial in the review. In the Bleich 2011 study, lower doses of misoprostol were achieved by cutting up 100 mcg tablets. Women were initially given 75 mcg of oral misoprostol which was repeated after four hours provided no adverse effects were observed. Primary outcomes in this trial were incidence of tachysystole, hypertonus, or both in a 10-minute period, and women in both arms of the trial were closely monitored for signs of fetal distress or uterine hyperstimulation. There was considerable deviation from the protocol in this study although there was both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses for some outcomes (in the misoprostol group 136/176 (77.3%) received the study drug while in the control group 143/174 (82.2%) women received the control drug as intended).

 

Excluded studies

One study identified by the search was excluded (Patel 2000). The reason for exclusion was that in this trial IV oxytocin was compared with vaginal (rather than oral) misoprostol.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

Please see Figure 1.

 FigureFigure 1. 'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

 

Allocation

Both included studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Both studies used computer-generated randomisation sequences and allocations were concealed in opaque envelopes.

 

Blinding

Blinding of women, staff and outcome assessors was not attempted in either study and this may have introduced bias. The impact of lack of blinding on most of the outcomes measured was not clear. It is possible that lack of blinding may have led to changes in subsequent clinical assessments and decision-making which may have affected some outcomes.

 

Incomplete outcome data

One of the studies did not appear to have serious sample attrition (Ho 2010). In the study by Bleich 2011, there was some deviation from protocol which meant that results were more difficult to interpret: 20.30% of study participants overall (22.70% in experimental group and 17.80% in control group) did not receive study drugs and, while reasons were reported, the authors did not explain why the proportion attributable to progression to 8 cm prior to initiation of augmentation differed between groups (18/40 women in experimental group and 30/31 in control group). It was also unclear how many women randomised to the misoprostol arm eventually received oxytocin due to drug failure, as per study protocol.

 

Selective reporting

Both studies were assessed as unclear for outcome reporting bias.

 

Other potential sources of bias

Neither study had other obvious sources of bias. We have set out summaries of our 'Risk of bias' decisions in Figure 1.

 

Effects of interventions

 

Titrated oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (2 studies with 581 women)

The studies in the review compared different regimens of titrated oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. Ho 2010 used 20 microgram (mcg) doses of misoprostol (repeated every hour up to four hours, after which the dose was increased to 40 mcg per hour up to a maximum total dose of 1600 mcg), while Bleich 2011 gave women 75 mcg doses (repeated after four hours provided there were no adverse effects observed).

As the two trials examined different interventions, we did not pool results in meta-analyses.

 

Primary outcomes

 
Maternal outcomes
 
Maternal death or severe morbidity (e.g. ruptured uterus, admission to intensive care unit, septicaemia, organ failure)

This outcome was not reported in either of the included trials.

 
Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes

Both studies reported hyperstimulation with changes in FHR; neither trial showed clear differences between groups (Ho 2010 (20 mcg dose): risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 6.68, 231 women,  Analysis 1.1; Bleich 2011 (75 mcg dose): RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.88 to1.80, 350 women  Analysis 2.1).

Overall, the rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes were very different in the two studies. A much higher proportion of women in the study carried out by Bleich 2011 experienced hyperstimulation with FHR changes (29% of women receiving misoprostol and 23% of women receiving oxytocin) than those enrolled in Ho 2010 (1.70% of women receiving misoprostol and 1.80% of women receiving oxytocin). These differences in background rates of hyperstimulation suggest that factors other than the dosing regimen differed between studies, such as the measurement of this outcome or other aspects of women's care.

 
Neonatal/fetal outcomes
 
Perinatal death (stillbirth and neonatal death)

This outcome was not reported in either of the included trials.

 

Secondary outcomes

 
Maternal outcomes
 
Maternal mortality, or serious maternal morbidity (e.g. ruptured uterus, admission to intensive care unit, septicaemia, organ failure)

These outcomes were not reported in either of the included trials.

 
Duration of labour

This outcome was not reported in either of the included trials in a way that allowed us to enter data into data and analyses tables. Ho 2010 reported the median and interquartile range (IQR) for the duration of labour from augmentation to vaginal delivery; the median time to delivery was 5.22 hours (IQR 3.77 to 8.58) in the misoprostol group compared with 5.20 hours (IQR 3.23 to 6.50) in the oxytocin group (P = 0.019) (data not shown). Bleich 2011 reported no significant difference in the median time between start of augmentation and delivery (median 306 minutes, IQR 252 to 408 in the misoprostol group versus 276 minutes IQR 162 to 462 in the oxytocin group, P = 0.29 (data not shown)).

 
Caesarean section (CS)

Both studies reported this outcome, and neither study showed any significant difference for rates of CS for women who had experienced augmentation with titrated oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (Ho 2010 (20 mcg dose): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.85, 231 women,  Analysis 1.3; Bleich 2011 (75 mcg dose): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.92, 350 women,  Analysis 2.3). Bleich 2011 also provided data for CS for non-reassuring FHR and prolonged labour; the difference between groups was not statistically significant for either indication (CS for fetal distress: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.53 to 4.74, 350 women,  Analysis 2.6; CS for prolonged labour: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.82, 350 women,  Analysis 2.8).

 
Instrumental birth

Bleich 2011 reported the number of forceps deliveries in the two groups; overall, the number of events was low and the difference between groups was not significant (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.66, 350 women,  Analysis 2.7).

 
Duration of first and second stages of labour

These outcomes were not reported in either of the included trials.

 
Postpartum haemorrhage (as defined by trialists)

This outcome was not reported in either of the included trials.

 
Hyperstimulation of labour

Results from the two studies regarding uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes were measured in different ways, and findings were not consistent. Rates of tachysystole and hypertonus were reported by Ho 2010, who found a significantly lower incidence of tachysystole when labour was augmented with titrated oral misoprostol than with oxytocin (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.91, 231 women,  Analysis 1.4), and recorded no occurrences of hypertonus in either group of women ( Analysis 1.5). On the other hand, Bleich 2011 reported the incidence of uterine tachysystole, hypertonus, or both, in a 10-minute period (hyperstimulation of labour) and more women whose labours had been augmented with titrated oral misoprostol experienced this outcome (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.35, 350 women,  Analysis 2.9). However, Bleich 2011 also reported uterine tachysystole in a 20-minute interval and for this outcome the difference between groups was not statistically significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.72, 350 women,  Analysis 2.10)

 
Diagnosis of chorioamnionitis

Bleich 2011 reported the number of women with a diagnosis of chorioamnionitis; the difference between groups was not statistically significant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.37, 350 women,  Analysis 2.11).

 
Other secondary outcomes

Several of our secondary maternal outcomes were not reported in either trial (episiotomy, perineal trauma, breastfeeding, maternal satisfaction with care in labour, vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours and postnatal depression).

Ho 2010 reported vaginal delivery within 12 hours of commencement of augmentation (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 231 women,  Analysis 1.6) and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of commencement of augmentation (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11, 231 women,  Analysis 1.7). Neither of these outcomes showed a statistically significant difference between the two interventions.

 
Neonatal/Fetal outcomes

Most of our pre-specified neonatal outcomes were not reported in either trial (fetal intrapartum death; early neonatal death; birth trauma (e.g. Erb's palsy, fractured skull, cephalhaematoma, fractured clavicle); neonatal morbidity, excluding malformations (e.g. seizures, birth asphyxia, neonatal encephalopathy, infection requiring antibiotics); need for intubation at birth; duration of infant hospital stay; or childhood disability).

 
pH of arterial cord blood less than 7.0

Bleich 2011 reported umbilical cord artery pH less than 7.1, however, the number of events was low in both groups, and the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.26, data for 350 infants,  Analysis 2.12).

 
Apgar score less than seven at five minutes

Ho 2010 recorded no events for this outcome in either group ( Analysis 1.8).

 
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)

Bleich 2011 and Ho 2010 both reported admissions to NICU; the differences between groups were not statistically significant in either study (Bleich 2011: RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.31, data for 350 infants,  Analysis 2.13; Ho 2010: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.47 to 12.09, data for 231 infants,  Analysis 1.9). Few babies were admitted to NICUs in these studies (seven out of 231 in Ho 2010, one out of 350 in Bleich 2011), so these studies did not have sufficient power to demonstrate differences for this outcome.

 
Non pre-specified outcomes
 
Rate of failure to progress

Ho 2010 reported failure to progress in labour; the difference between groups was not significant (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.77, 231 women,  Analysis 1.10).

 
Maternal side-effects: nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, shivering and pyrexia

Ho 2010 reported data for several side-effects commonly associated with augmentation of labour using misoprostol and/or oxytocin. The prevalence of these side-effects was very low and there were no significant differences between groups in the number of women experiencing nausea, vomiting, shivering or pyrexia: nausea (RR 2.87 95% CI 0.12 to 69.82, 231 women,  Analysis 1.11), vomiting (RR 2.87 95% CI 0.12 to 69.82, 231 women,  Analysis 1.12), shivering (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.12 to 69.82, 231 women,  Analysis 1.14), and pyrexia (RR 2.87 95% CI 0.12 to 69.82, 231 women,  Analysis 1.15). No experience of diarrhoea was reported ( Analysis 1.13). The low number of events means that there was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the prevalence of side-effects for misoprostol versus oxytocin.

 
Apgar score less than seven at one minute

Ho 2010 reported on Apgar score less than seven at one minute; however, the number of events was very low and the difference between groups was not statistically significant (RR 4.79, 95% CI 0.23 to 98.69, data for 231 infants,  Analysis 1.17).

 
Birthweight of newborn (g)

Bleich 2011 provided data on birthweight. the difference between groups was not statistically significant (mean difference (MD) -22.00 g, 95% CI -117.96 to 73.96, data for 350 infants,  Analysis 2.17).

 
Maternal blood transfusion for hypovolaemia

Bleich 2011 reported the number of women requiring blood transfusions for hypovolaemia; however, the number of events was low, and the difference between groups was not significant (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.49, 350 women,  Analysis 2.5).

 
Apgar score less than four at five minutes

No babies born to women recruited by Bleich 2011 had an Apgar score less than at five minutes ( Analysis 2.14).

 
Spontaneous vaginal delivery

Bleich 2011 showed no clear differences in the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery between women who received titrated oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06, 350 women,  Analysis 2.15).

 
Epidural analgesia

Bleich 2011 reported on use of epidural analgesia. There was a trend towards lower use of epidural analgesia among women with labours augmented using misoprostol, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 350 women,  Analysis 2.16)

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

The two trials included in this review used different oral misoprostol regimens to augment labour, complicating comparisons of outcomes. Neither trial reported maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, or fetal/neonatal mortality outcomes, and only a few fetal/neonatal morbidity outcomes were considered, none of which were significantly different between groups. For several outcomes (such as maternal side-effects, instrumental birth, maternal blood transfusion for hypovolaemia and epidural analgesia), the number of events was generally too low for sufficient statistical power to be achieved, and maternal satisfaction was not used as an outcome in either trial. The duration of labour from the start of augmentation to delivery in the Ho 2010 trial was slightly less in the oxytocin group compared with the misoprostol group (median 5.20 hours compared with 5.22). Bleich 2011 reported no significant difference between groups in the interval between start of augmentation and delivery. Neither trial had significantly higher rates of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes in the titrated oral misoprostol group. However, the rates of this outcome varied so greatly between the two studies to suggest that other factors were at play.

Neither trial reported significantly higher rates of CS in the oral misoprostol group, nor CS for non-reassuring FHR or prolonged labour in the trial using a 75 mcg misoprostol dose (Bleich 2011). Rates of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours of commencing augmentation were not significantly different in the trial using a 20 mcg misoprostol dose (Ho 2010). The only significant differences in these two trials related to hyperstimulation and the results from the trials were not consistent. Following titrated oral misoprostol in the Bleich 2011 trial, significantly more women experienced hyperstimulation of labour (tachysystole, hypertonus or both) in a 10-minute interval compared to those receiving oxytocin. However, we find it noteworthy that Ho 2010 reported a significantly lower incidence of tachysystole when labour was augmented with titrated oral misoprostol compared to oxytocin (via an electronic infusion pump), and recorded no occurrences of hypertonus in either group. This suggests that lower doses of misoprostol for augmentation are a credible alternative to an uncontrolled oxytocin infusion in order to avoid hyperstimulation.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

Titrated oral misoprostol use was not associated with lower rates of vaginal delivery or higher rates of CS compared to intravenous (IV) oxytocin regimens in women with dystocia following spontaneous onset of labour. The association between misoprostol use and uterine hyperstimulation (Bleich 2011) is not a new finding; however, the higher oral misoprostol dose (75 mcg) used in the Bleich 2011 trial (compared with the 20 mcg dose in Ho 2010) may have been a contributing factor. We did not identify any trials examining other comparisons (such as oral misoprostol against placebo or other augmentation methods), nor did we identify trials examining differences in outcomes following induction, rather than in women who labour spontaneously.

 

Quality of the evidence

Both of the trials included in the review were of fairly good methodological quality. Both trials used methods of randomisation which we assessed as low risk of bias, and overall rates of sample attrition were low. Blinding women, staff and outcome assessors for these types of interventions is not simple as both groups would have needed either placebo IV infusions or oral drugs; the impact of lack of blinding on outcomes is uncertain. The results of the Bleich 2011 study were more difficult to interpret because women in both groups did not receive the intended treatment, and the reasons for this did not appear to be the same in the two arms of the trial; on the other hand, both an intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were presented for selected outcomes.

 

Potential biases in the review process

We are aware that the review process itself may be subject to bias, and we attempted to minimise this in a number of ways. Assessment of eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently by two review authors (J Vogel and H West). Assessment of risk of bias was also carried out independently by two review authors and a consensus reached through discussion; we have provided detailed information in Characteristics of included studies Risk of Bias tables to explain our decisions, but it is possible a different review team may have made slightly different assessments.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

There are no other reviews of titrated oral misoprostol regimens for augmentation. However, a Cochrane review (Alfirevic 2006) of oral misoprostol for induction of labour contained a subgroup analysis of oral misoprostol versus IV oxytocin for induction. In the eight trials including 1026 women for this comparison, the only overall difference in outcomes was an increase in meconium-stained liquor in women with ruptured membranes in the oral misoprostol group. There was not a significant difference in hyperstimulation of labour outcomes (with or without FHR changes).

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

Important uncertainties still exist on the safety and acceptability of titrated oral misoprostol compared to IV oxytocin regimens in women with dystocia following spontaneous onset of labour. In addition, there is no consistent definition of a titrated oral misoprostol regimen, thus complicating interpretation. The available evidence suggests titrated oral misoprostol for women with labour dystocia (following spontaneous onset of labour) is not significantly different to IV oxytocin in terms of vaginal delivery within 12 or 24 hours or rates of CS. The evidence on uterine hyperstimulation is not clear; compared with oxytocin (via electronic pump infusion), hyperstimulation may be increased with higher doses of misoprostol, whereas with lower doses it may be reduced. To avoid hyperstimulation, lower doses of misoprostol may be a good alternative in facilities where an uncontrolled oxytocin infusion is the only other option. In addition, clinically important outcomes, such as severe maternal and fetal/newborn morbidity and mortality, as well as maternal adverse effects and acceptability, have not been explored.

 
Implications for research

Further research is needed before titrated oral misoprostol regimens can be considered a safe, effective and acceptable alternative to oxytocin regimens for augmentation in labour dystocia. More trials should be conducted to evaluate the effect of a standard titration oral misoprostol regimen, both following spontaneous labour and labour induction. Comparisons with other augmentation methods are also warranted, as are any effects on women's birth experiences.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms

This review is financially supported by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), the Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization. The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication.

The World Health Organization and Therese Dowswell and Helen West retain copyright and all other rights in their respective contributions to the manuscript of this review as submitted for publication.

As part of the pre-publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by two peers (an editor and referee who is external to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Titrated misoprostol (20 mcg dose) vs intravenous oxytocin

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with non-reassuring heart rate changes1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.96 [0.14, 6.68]

2 Duration of labour (e.g.: 3 cm dilatation to delivery), in minutes00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 3 Caesarean section1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.88 [0.42, 1.85]

 4 Incidence of tachysystole1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.39 [0.17, 0.91]

 5 Incidence of hypertonus1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 6 Vaginal delivery within 12 hours of commencement of augmentation1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.91 [0.80, 1.03]

 7 Vaginal delivery within 24 hours of commencement of augmentation1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.02 [0.93, 1.11]

 8 Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 9 Admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.39 [0.47, 12.09]

 10 Non pre-specified outcome: Rate of failure to progress1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.80 [0.36, 1.77]

 11 Non pre-specified outcome: Maternal side-effects: nausea1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.87 [0.12, 69.82]

 12 Non pre-specified outcome: Maternal side-effects: vomiting1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.87 [0.12, 69.82]

 13 Non pre-specified outcome: Maternal side-effects: diarrhoea1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 14 Non pre-specified outcome: Maternal side-effects: shivering1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.87 [0.12, 69.82]

 15 Non pre-specified outcome: Maternal side-effects: pyrexia1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.87 [0.12, 69.82]

16 Non pre-specified outcome: Total dosage of oxytocin or misoprostol00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 17 Non pre-specified outcome: Apgar score < 7 at 1 minute1231Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)4.79 [0.23, 98.69]

18 Non pre-specified outcome: Active phase interval00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Non pre-specified outcome: Birthweight of newborn00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 
Comparison 2. Titrated misoprostol (75 mcg dose) vs intravenous oxytocin

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Uterine hyperstimulation (tachysystole, hypertonus or both) associated with fetal heart changes1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.26 [0.88, 1.80]

2 Duration of labour (from start of augmentation to delivery), in minutes00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 3 Caesarean section1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.04 [0.57, 1.92]

4 Duration of second stage00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 5 Maternal blood transfusion for hypovolemia1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.97 [0.61, 14.49]

 6 Caesarean for non-reassuring fetal heart rate (i.e. fetal distress)1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.58 [0.53, 4.74]

 7 Forceps delivery1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.98 [0.37, 10.66]

 8 Caesarean section for dystocia (i.e. prolonged labour)1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.84 [0.39, 1.82]

 9 Uterine tachysystole, hypertonus, or both in 10-minute period (hyperstimulation of labour)1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.17 [1.02, 1.35]

 10 Uterine tachysystole in a 20-minute interval1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.21 [0.84, 1.72]

 11 Chorioamnionitis1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.87 [0.55, 1.37]

 12 Umbilical cord artery pH < 7.11350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.74 [0.17, 3.26]

 13 Admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)2.97 [0.12, 72.31]

 14 Non pre-specified outcome: Apgar score < 4 at 5 minutes1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 15 Non pre-specified outcome: Spontaneous vaginal delivery1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.98 [0.91, 1.06]

 16 Non pre-specified outcome: Epidural analgesia1350Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.92 [0.84, 1.01]

 17 Non pre-specified outcome: Birthweight1350Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)-22.0 [-117.96, 73.96]

18 Non pre-specified outcome: Maximum number of Monteovideo units00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Non pre-specified outcome: Maximum oxytocin dose00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Non pre-specified outcome: Admission to study drug (minutes)00Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms

For the protocol: Helen West (HW) produced the first draft. Joshua Vogel (JV) and Therese Dowswell commented upon, and revised the text.

For the review: HW and JV carried out data extraction and entered data. All three authors contributed to the text.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms

Helen West: no known conflicts of interest.
Joshua Vogel: no known conflicts of interest.
Therese Dowswell: no known conflicts of interest.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Contributions of authors
  11. Declarations of interest
  12. Sources of support
  13. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • University of Liverpool, UK.

 

External sources

  • UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), the Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Switzerland.

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Characteristics of studies
  15. References to studies included in this review
  16. References to studies excluded from this review
  17. References to ongoing studies
  18. Additional references
Bleich 2011 {published data only}
  • Bleich AT, Villano KS, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Oral misoprostol for labor augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;118(6):1255-60.
Ho 2010 {published data only}
  • Ho M, Cheng SY, Li TC. Titrated oral misoprostol solution compared with intravenous oxytocin for labor augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010;116(3):612-8.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Characteristics of studies
  15. References to studies included in this review
  16. References to studies excluded from this review
  17. References to ongoing studies
  18. Additional references
Patel 2000 {published data only}
  • Patel A, Giles JM, Moffett D, Mahram R, Diro M, Burkett G. Can misoprostol be interchanged with oxytocin for augmentation of labor? [abstract]. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;95(4 Suppl):10S.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Characteristics of studies
  15. References to studies included in this review
  16. References to studies excluded from this review
  17. References to ongoing studies
  18. Additional references
Abbassi 2008
  • Abbassi RM, Sirichand P, Rizvi S. Safety and efficacy of oral versus vaginal misoprostol use for induction of labour at term. Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons - Pakistan: JCPSP 2008;18(10):625-9.
Alfirevic 2006
Blanchard 2002
Bricker 2008
Buchmann 2006
Cheng 2006
  • Cheng SY, Chen TC. Pilot study of labor induction with titrated oral misoprostol. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;45(3):225-9.
Cheng 2008
Cheng 2010
Chibber 2011
  • Chibber R, El-Saleh E, El Harmi J. Female circumcision: obstetrical and psychological sequelae continues unabated in the 21st century. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2011;24(6):833-6.
Friedman 2001
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hofmeyr 1999
Hofmeyr 2001a
Hofmeyr 2010
Hofmeyr 2011
  • Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Novikova N, Lawrie TA. Postpartum misoprostol for preventing maternal mortality and morbidity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008982]
Hofmeyr 2013
Hogberg 2000
Kalogiannidis 2011
  • Kalogiannidis I, Margioula-Siarkou C, Petousis S, Masoura S, Goutzioulis A, Traianos A, et al. Parity affects pregnancy outcomes in women 35 and older. Clinical & Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 2011;38(2):146-9.
Kjaergaard 2008
  • Kjaergaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Nyberg P, Dykes AK. Obstetric risk indicators for labour dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2008;8:45.
Kjaergaard 2009
Konje 1990
Kundodyiwa 2009
Lawn 2009
  • Lawn JE, Lee AC, Kinney M, Sibley L, Carlo WA, Paul VK, et al. Two million intrapartum-related stillbirths and neonatal deaths: where, why, and what can be done?. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009;107 Suppl 1:S5-18, S19.
Lederman 1978
  • Lederman RP, Lederman E, Work BA Jr, McCann DS. The relationship of maternal anxiety, plasma catecholamines, and plasma cortisol to progress in labor. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1978;132(5):495-500.
Lovold 2008
  • Lovold A, Stanton C, Armbruster D. How to avoid iatrogenic morbidity and mortality while increasing availability of oxytocin and misoprostol for PPH prevention?. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2008;103(3):276-82.
Margulies 1992
Matonhodze 2003
  • Matonhodze B, Hofmeyr GJ, Levin J. Labour induction at term--a randomised trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol solution alone, and dinoprostone. South African Medical Journal. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde 2003;93(5):375-9.
McClure 2006
Nassar 2007
Neilson 2003
Norman 1991
Nystedt 2005
O'Hana 2008
  • O'Hana H P, Levy A, Rozen A, Greemberg L, Shapira Y, Sheiner E. The effect of epidural analgesia on labor progress and outcome in nulliparous women. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2008;21(8):517-21.
Piper 1991
RevMan 2012
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Scholl 2012
Selin 2008
Sheiner 2002
  • Sheiner E, Levy A, Feinstein U, Hallak M, Mazor M. Risk factors and outcome of failure to progress during the first stage of labor: a population-based study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2002;81(3):222-6.
Sheiner 2007
  • Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M. Short stature - an independent risk factor for Caesarean delivery. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2005;120(2):175-8.
Shields 2007
Simpson 2003
Souza 2010
  • Souza AS, Scavuzzi A, Rodrigues DC, Oliveira RD, Feitosa FE, Amorim MM. Titrated oral solution of misoprostol for labour induction: a pilot study. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia 2010;32(5):208-13.
Stanton 2012
  • Stanton C, Koski A, Cofie P, Mirzabagi E, Grady BL, Brooke S. Uterotonic drug quality: an assessment of the potency of injectable uterotonic drugs purchased by simulated clients in three districts in Ghana. BMJ open 2012;2(3):e000431. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000431]
Tang 2007
  • Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: Pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2007;99 Suppl 2:S160-S167.
Thaisomboon 2012
  • Thaisomboon A, Russameecharoen K, Wanitpongpan P, Phattanachindakun B, Changnoi A. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol and a conventional oral regimen for cervical ripening and labor induction. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2012;116(1):13-6.
Uludag 2005
  • Uludag S, Salihoglu Saricali F, Madazli R, Cepni I. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Biology 2005;122(1):57-60.
Vahratian 2004
  • Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104(5 Pt 1):943-51.
Vahratian 2006
Villano 2011
  • Villano KS, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. A dose-finding study of oral misoprostol for labor augmentation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;204(6):560.e1-5.
Weeks 2005
Weeks 2007
Yakoob 2010
Zvandasara 2008
  • Zvandasara P, Saungweme G, Mlambo J, Chidembo W, Madzivanzira N, Mwanjira C. Induction of labour with titrated oral misoprostol suspension. A comparative study with vaginal misoprostol. Central African Journal of Medicine 2008;54(9-12):43-9.