Comparison of the effect of oral and vaginal misoprostol on labor induction: updating a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study is aimed to compare the effect of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol to induce labor as a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed [Medline], Scopus, Web of science, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the relevant keywords. All RCTs comparing the effect of oral vs vaginal misoprostol on labor induction were considered. The Cochrane Risk of Bias checklist was used for assessing quality of included RCTs. All statistical analyses were completed using STATA (Version 16) and Revman (Version 5).ResultsThirty-three RCTs with 5162 patients (1560 in oral and 2602 in vaginal groups) were included in this meta-analysis. Labor induction length did differ significantly between the two routes of misoprostol administration [Standardized Mean Difference: 0.40 h, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34, 0.46; I2: 66.35%; P = 0.04]. In addition, the risk of neonatal death, tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation, preeclampsia, non-FHR and abortion was lower in the oral misoprostol group and the risk of hypertonus, PROM, oxytocin need and cesarean fever was higher in this group than the vaginal misoprostol group.ConclusionsBased on results of this meta-analysis, it can be inferred that currently, clinical specialists can decide to use this drug orally or vaginally on a case-by-case basis, depending on the condition of the pregnant mother and the baby.