A double‐blind placebo controlled randomised trial of misoprostol and oxytocin in the management of the third stage of labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare oral misoprostol 400 microg with intramuscular oxytocin 10 IU in the routine management of the third stage. DESIGN: Double-blind placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Main referral hospital and its associated polyclinics in Accra, Ghana. POPULATION: Four hundred and one low risk women, in the second stage of labour with anticipated vaginal delivery, who entered labour spontaneously. METHODS: After delivery of the anterior shoulder of the baby, the women were randomised to receive either: 1. misoprostol 400 microg powder in water orally and 1 mL normal saline intramuscular injection (placebo); or 2. powdered cellulose in water orally (placebo) and 1 mL oxytocin 10 IU intramuscular injection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in haemoglobin concentration from before delivery to 12 hours postpartum. Secondary outcomes included need for additional oxytocics, blood loss > 500 mL and > 1,000 mL, operative intervention for postpartum haemorrhage, and side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, shivering and elevated temperature. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar. There was no significant difference in change in haemoglobin concentration between the two groups (0.60 g/dL for misoprostol and 0.55 g/dL for oxytocin; relative difference 9.6%; 95% CI 20.5-39.6%; P = 0.54). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes with the exception of shivering, which occurred more frequently in the misoprostol group (22.2% vs 5.7%; relative risk 4.73; 95% CI 2.31-9.68; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In low risk women oral misoprostol appears to be as effective in minimising blood loss in the third stage of labour as intramuscular oxytocin. Shivering was noted more frequently with misoprostol use, but no other side effects were noted. Misoprostol has great potential for use in the third stage of labour especially in developing countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".