Escolha sua fonte:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 Português 
 Français 
 English 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Banco de dados - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Descrição deste banco de dados documental (Site da AFAR)
Atualmente 3059 fichas
Canal do YouTube (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=2753

Criado em : 26 Nov 2017
Alterado em : 26 Nov 2017

 Modificar esta ficha
Siga este link somente se você tiver um palavra chave de editor!


Compartilhar: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Difícil

Nota bibliográfica (sem autor) :

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews - Vol. 6 - p.CD001338

Autores :

Alfirevic, Z.; Aflaifel, N.; Weeks, A.

Ano de publicação :

2014

URL(s) :

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.…
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (17 January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.
MAIN RESULTS: Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.

Sumário (português)  :

Comentários :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Palavras-chaves :

➡ indução ; misoprostol (Cytotec)

Autor da esta ficha :

Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017

Discussão (exibir apenas português)
 
➡ Reservado para usuários identificados



 Li a carta de discussões e aceito as condições (leia as diretrizes)

barre

Efectuar uma nova consulta especialista --- Outro pedido simples

Criação de uma ficha --- Importar registros

Gerenciamento de usuários --- Fazer backup do banco de dados --- Contato

bar

Esta base de dados é gerida pela Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
filiados Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
Ele é alimentado pelas contribuições de voluntários interessados ​​em compartilhar informações científicas.
Se você aprovar este projeto, você pode nos ajudar de várias maneiras:
(1) tornar-se um colaborador com base nisso, se você tem um pouco experiência na literatura científica
(2) ou apoio financeiro AFAR (veja abaixo)
(3) ou tornar-se um membro da AFAR (ou outra associação afiliada à CIANE).
Faça login ou crie uma conta para seguir as alterações ou se tornar um editor.
Contato afar.association(arobase)gmail.com para mais informações.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Doar para a AFAR (clique em “Faire un don”) nos ajudará a manter e desenvolver sites e bancos de dados
públicos para o apoio das decisões informadas dos pais e cuidadores com relação ao parto