MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218561470 · doi:10.14740/jcgo.v4i4.321

Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Gel for Induction in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes at Term

2015· article· en· W2218561470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonna Malathi, Venigalla Sunita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisoprostolDinoprostoneMedicineObstetricsRupture of membranesGestational ageVaginal deliveryPregnancyGynecologyAbortionProstaglandin E2Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone gel for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes at term pregnancy. Methods: This is a prospective study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at Sri Devraj Urs Medical College from December 2010 to September 2012. One hundred patients were induced with either misoprostol or dinoprostone gel using computer-generated randomized table. The study had two groups. Group I had 50 cases of primigravida, where 25 cases were induced with misoprostol and another 25 were induced with dinoprostone gel. Group II had 50 cases of multigravida, where 25 cases were induced with misoprostol and the rest 25 were induced with dinoprostone gel. Twenty-five microgram misoprostol was inserted vaginally every sixth hourly for maximum of six doses and 0.5 mg dinoprostone gel was used intracervically every sixth hourly for maximum of three doses. The primary outcome measured was induction to delivery interval and the secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcome. Results: Among the patients induced, both the groups were comparable with respect to age, parity, booking status, gestational age, and pre-induction Bishop’s score. There was no significant difference in induction to delivery interval between both the groups. The induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 6.65 hours and that in dinoprostone group was 6.89 hours. In primigravida, the induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 7.74 hours and 7.08 hours in dinoprostone group and in multigravida, the induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 5.55 hours and in dinoprostone group was 6.71 hours. In primigravida, dinoprostone has shorter induction to delivery interval compared to misoprostol. In multigravida, misoprostol has shorter induction to delivery interval compared to dinoprostone. There was no difference in mode of delivery in both the groups. There was no significant difference in maternal outcome and neonatal outcome among both the groups. Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol is equally efficacious in labor induction and demonstrates a similar fetal and maternal safety profile when compared with dinoprostone gel. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015;4(4):302-306 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo321w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207