Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin for the Prevention of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including Individual Participant Data.

Madeline Flanagan,Nicole Au,Malitha Patabendige,Arsheeya Rattan,Ritwik Samanta,Daljit Sahota,Enrique Teran,Vanita Jain,Abdulkarim O Musa,Munir'deen A Ijaiya,Daniel L Rolnik,Wentao Li,Ben W Mol
{"title":"Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin for the Prevention of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including Individual Participant Data.","authors":"Madeline Flanagan,Nicole Au,Malitha Patabendige,Arsheeya Rattan,Ritwik Samanta,Daljit Sahota,Enrique Teran,Vanita Jain,Abdulkarim O Musa,Munir'deen A Ijaiya,Daniel L Rolnik,Wentao Li,Ben W Mol","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality. Uterotonics are the mainstay of PPH prevention.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVES\r\nTo compare the efficacy of misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH and to evaluate the trustworthiness of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\r\n\r\nSEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA\r\nSeven databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature meeting the inclusion criteria of RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH.\r\n\r\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\r\nData were collected by two independent reviewers. Individual participant data (IPD) were meta-analysed for outcomes PPH ≥ 500 and ≥ 1000 mL. RCTs that did not share IPD were classified as trustworthy or not, and aggregate data were meta-analysed according to trustworthiness.\r\n\r\nMAIN RESULTS\r\nOf 79 eligible RCTs, 10 (12.7%) provided IPD, of which 6 were included. Analysis of IPD showed PPH ≥ 500 mL to be significantly higher in the misoprostol than in the oxytocin group (2022 participants, aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.43-2.34). For PPH ≥ 1000 mL, analysis of IPD showed that misoprostol and oxytocin were comparable (2022 participants, OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.91). Of the 69 studies that did not provide IPD, 23 (33.3%) were assessed as trustworthy. Analysis of trustworthy data (IPD and 23 aggregate data RCTs) showed no difference between misoprostol and oxytocin for PPH ≥ 500 mL (24 334 participants, OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69-1.49), while misoprostol was associated with a significantly increased risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared to oxytocin (25 249 participants, OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.59).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nOf 79 RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH, 36.7% met trustworthiness criteria. Oxytocin is comparable to misoprostol for preventing PPH and may be superior for preventing severe PPH.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality. Uterotonics are the mainstay of PPH prevention. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy of misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH and to evaluate the trustworthiness of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature meeting the inclusion criteria of RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were collected by two independent reviewers. Individual participant data (IPD) were meta-analysed for outcomes PPH ≥ 500 and ≥ 1000 mL. RCTs that did not share IPD were classified as trustworthy or not, and aggregate data were meta-analysed according to trustworthiness. MAIN RESULTS Of 79 eligible RCTs, 10 (12.7%) provided IPD, of which 6 were included. Analysis of IPD showed PPH ≥ 500 mL to be significantly higher in the misoprostol than in the oxytocin group (2022 participants, aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.43-2.34). For PPH ≥ 1000 mL, analysis of IPD showed that misoprostol and oxytocin were comparable (2022 participants, OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.91). Of the 69 studies that did not provide IPD, 23 (33.3%) were assessed as trustworthy. Analysis of trustworthy data (IPD and 23 aggregate data RCTs) showed no difference between misoprostol and oxytocin for PPH ≥ 500 mL (24 334 participants, OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69-1.49), while misoprostol was associated with a significantly increased risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared to oxytocin (25 249 participants, OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.59). CONCLUSIONS Of 79 RCTs comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH, 36.7% met trustworthiness criteria. Oxytocin is comparable to misoprostol for preventing PPH and may be superior for preventing severe PPH.
米索前列醇与催产素预防产后出血:包括个体参与者数据的系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景产后出血(PPH)是孕产妇死亡的主要原因。子宫强直是预防PPH的主要方法。目的比较米索前列醇和催产素预防PPH的疗效,并评价这些随机对照试验(RCTs)的可信度。检索策略和选择标准我们检索了符合比较米索前列醇和催产素预防PPH的随机对照试验纳入标准的同行评议文献。数据收集和分析数据由两名独立审稿人收集。个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析结果PPH≥500和≥1000 mL。将未共享IPD的随机对照试验分为可信和不可信两类,并根据可信度对汇总数据进行meta分析。79项符合条件的rct中,10项(12.7%)提供IPD,其中6项纳入。IPD分析显示,米索前列醇组PPH≥500 mL显著高于催产素组(2022名参与者,aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.43-2.34)。对于PPH≥1000 mL, IPD分析显示米索前列醇和催产素具有可比性(2022名受试者,OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.91)。在69项未提供IPD的研究中,23项(33.3%)被评估为可信。可信数据分析(IPD和23个汇总数据rct)显示,米索前列醇和催产素在PPH≥500 mL时无差异(24334名参与者,OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69-1.49),而与催产素相比,米索前列醇与PPH≥1000 mL的风险显著增加相关(25249名参与者,OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.16-1.59)。结论在79项比较米索前列醇与催产素预防PPH的随机对照试验中,36.7%符合可信赖标准。催产素在预防PPH方面与米索前列醇相当,在预防严重PPH方面可能更优。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信