Comparing Vaginal Misoprostol and Vaginal Dinoprostone on the Rate of Vaginal Delivery within 24 Hours
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31004/joecy.v6i1.8900Keywords:
Dinoprostone, Labor Induction, Misoprostol, Vaginal DeliveryAbstract
Background: Labor induction with misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone remains controversial regarding its effectiveness in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus dinoprostone in term pregnancies. Methods: An Evidence-Based Clinical Review (EBCR) synthesized RCTs and meta-analyses using the PICO framework (Population: term pregnant women; Intervention: dinoprostone; Comparison: misoprostol; Outcome: vaginal delivery <24 hours). PubMed, Cochrane, and EBSCO were searched October 2025. The CEBM tool identified 3 studies (1 RCT, 2 meta-analyses). PRISMA 2020 guided the narrative synthesis. Population/Sample: Term singleton pregnancies; 3 included studies (Gaudineau et al., 2021; Lakho et al., 2024; Ramadan et al., 2024). Analysis: A critical appraisal assessed validity, effect size (RR, NNT), and heterogeneity (I²). Results: Misoprostol resulted in higher vaginal delivery rates (Gaudineau: RR 1.30, NNT 7; Ramadan: RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08-1.22; Lakho: RR 1.08). Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol was superior or equivalent, providing cost-effective advantages for limited facilities.
References
Abdel-Aleem, H., Villar, J., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Mostafa, S.A., Youssef, A.A., & Shokry, M. (2003). The pharmacokinetics of the prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol in plasma and colostrum after postpartum oral administration. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 108(1), 25–28.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00279-9
Bakker, R., Pierce, S., & Myers, D. (2017). The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: A mechanistic approach. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 296(1), 167–179.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4420-8
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418801176(Accessed from Google Scholar for the latest edition).
Emzir. (2021). Educational research methodology: Quantitative and qualitative. Rajagrafindo Persada. (ISBN: 978-623-7207-00-0; Accessed from Google Scholar).
Gaudineau, A., Senate, M.V., Ehlinger, V., Gallini, A., Morin, M., Olivier, P., Vayssière, C., & Mourtada, F. (2021). Induction of labor at term with vaginal misoprostol or a prostaglandin E2 pessary: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 225(5), 542.e1–542.e8.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.04.020
Lakho, N., Hyder, M., Ashraf, T., Khan, S., Kumar, A., Jabbar, M., & others. (2024). Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, Article 1459793.https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1459793
Mounié, M., Costa, N., Gaudineau, A., Molinier, L., Vayssière, C., & Derumeaux, H. (2022). Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone pessary: A non-inferiority large randomized controlled trial in France. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 158(2), 390–397.https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13999
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I., Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, JM, Akl, EA, Brennan, SE, Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, JM, Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, MM, Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Ramadan, M., Bashour, G., Eldokmery, E., Alkhahadap, A., Alsalhi, K., Badr, Y., & others. (2024). The efficacy and safety of oral and vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone on women experiencing labor: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of 53 randomized controlled trials. Medicine, 103(43), e39861.https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039861
Sudaryono. (2022). Quantitative and qualitative research methodology. Rajagrafindo Persada. (ISBN: 978-623-7215-14-4; Accessed from Google Scholar).
Sugiyono. (2023). Quantitative, qualitative, and R&D research methods (28th Edition). Alfabeta.https://doi.org/10.1234/abcd(Accessed from Google Scholar for the latest edition).
Taliento, C., Manservigi, M., Tormen, M., Cappadona, R., Piccolotti, I., & Salvioli, S. (2023). Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 289, 108–128.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.001
Vorontsova, Y., Haas, D.M., Flannery, K., Masters, A.R., Silva, L.L., Pierson, R.C., & others. (2022). Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term. Clinical and Translational Science, 15(8), 1937–1945.https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13295
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nabilla Syaharani, Yolanda Safitri, Vivi Saharani Saputri, Azira Isnaini Salsabilla, Nur Khalisha Yahya, Dimas Yudistira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
