OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and @entity1 acceptability of 50 microg of sublingual @entity396 with 100 microg of oral @entity396 in the induction of labour at term. DESIGN: Non-blinded randomised comparative trial. SETTING: Tertiary level UK Hospital. SAMPLE: Two hundred and fifty @entity1 at term with indications for labour induction. METHODS: Fifty micrograms of sublingual @entity396 or 100 microg of oral @entity396 was administered every four hours after random allocation, to a maximum of five doses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of @entity1 delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction, mode of delivery, neonatal outcomes and @entity1 acceptability. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the number of @entity1 delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction in the sublingual group as compared with the oral group (62.8% vs 59%, RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.1), or in the mean induction to delivery time (21.8 vs 24.1 h, mean difference 2.3 h 95% CI -2.2 to +6.7). There was no difference in the uterine hyperstimulation rates (1.6% in both groups), operative delivery rates or neonatal outcomes. In the sublingual group, 92.6% found the induction acceptable with 15.8% finding the tablets with an unpleasant taste, while in the oral group it was 96.9% and 4%, respectively. More @entity1 in the oral group thought that they would consider the same method of induction again as compared with the sublingual group (58.6% vs 40%, RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.04-1.9). CONCLUSION: Fifty micrograms of sublingual @entity396 every four hours has the same efficacy and safety profile as compared with 100 microg orally, but the oral route might be preferred by @entity1 .

Sublingual compared with oral XXXX in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'women', 'patient'] @entity396 :: ('MESH:D016595', 'Chemical') :: ['misoprostol']
@entity396 :: (MESH:D016595,Chemical) :: ['misoprostol']
