| Literature DB >> 35449871 |
Renmei Xu1, Yongjie Guo1, Qinggui Zhang1, Xiaokang Zeng2.
Abstract
In order to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus oxytocin in the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage, this paper provides evidence-based reference for clinical medication, computerized retrieval of Chinese biomedical literature database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials. The retrieval period is from the establishment of each database to October 1, 2021. Published randomized controlled trials (RCTS) are included in this study. The literature is screened and evaluated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and meta-analysis is performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 13 RCTS are included, with a total of 24754 parturients. The meta-analysis shows the average blood loss (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.11, 0.32), P=0.35), the time of the third stage of labor (SMD = 0, 95% CI (-0.07, 0.08), P=0.95), and blood transfusion rate (RR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.63, 1.02), P=0.07). However, the incidences of shivering (RR = 2.61, 95% CI (1.79, 0.81), P < 0.00001) and vomiting (RR = 2.78, 95% CI (1.85, 4.18), P < 0.00001) are significantly higher than those in oxytocin group. The effect of misoprostol on preventing postpartum hemorrhage is similar to that of oxytocin, but the incidence of adverse reactions is high, and the occurrence of adverse reactions should be closely watched in the use process. Due to the limitations of the included studies, multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTS are still needed in the future to further verify this conclusion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35449871 PMCID: PMC9017444 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3254586
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart for our literature search.
The baseline characteristics of included studies.
| First author (year) | Country | Group | Age (mean ± SD), years | Sample size | Intervening measure | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atukunda (2014) | Uganda | Experimental group | 29.3 ± 3.4 | 570 | 600 | (2) (3) (4) |
| Control group | 29.7 ± 3.1 | 570 | 10 u oxytocin, intramuscular | |||
| Bellad (2012) | Belgium | Experimental group | 23.0 ± 3.1 | 321 | 400 | (2) (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 22.8 ± 3.0 | 331 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Blum (2010) | Burkina Faso, Turkey, Egypt | Experimental group | 25.0 ± 5.3 | 407 | 800 | (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 25.0 ± 4.8 | 402 | 40 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Chaudhuri (2012) | India | Experimental group | 22.07 ± 3.60 | 265 | 400 | (1) (4) |
| Control group | 22.35 ± 2.97 | 265 | 10 u oxytocin, intramuscular | |||
| Elbohoty (2016) | Egypt | Experimental group | 27.9 ± 5.2 | 89 | 400 | (1) (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 27.7 ± 5.5 | 86 | 10 u oxytocin, intramuscular | |||
| Gülmezoglu (2001) | Argentina, China, Egypt, Ireland, Nigeria, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Vietnam | Experimental group | 26.5 ± 5.5 | 9264 | 600 | (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 26.3 ± 5.4 | 9266 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Kundodyiwa (2001) | Zimbabwe | Experimental group | 24.4 ± 5.6 | 243 | 400 | (4) (5) |
| Control group | 23.8 ± 5.3 | 256 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Musa (2015) | Nigeria | Experimental group | 29.60 ± 4.71 | 100 | 600 | (1) (2) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 29.50 ± 4.37 | 100 | 10 u oxytocin, intramuscular | |||
| Oboro (2003) | Nigeria | Experimental group | 23.6 ± 5.2 | 247 | 600 | (1) (2) (3) (5) |
| Control group | 23.9 ± 4.8 | 249 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Rajaei (2014) | Iran | Experimental group | 25.86 ± 5.79 | 200 | 400 | −1 |
| Control group | 25.86 ± 5.79 | 200 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Singh (2009) | India | Experimental group | 24.17 ± 2.57 | 75 | 400 | (1) (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 24.27 ± 2.67 | 75 | 5 u oxytocin, i.v. | |||
| Walley (2000) | Ghana | Experimental group | 25.7 ± 5.0 | 203 | 400 | (1) (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 26.1 ± 5.5 | 198 | 10 u oxytocin, intramuscular | |||
| Çalişkan E (2003) | Turkey | Experimental group | 24.4 ± 4.7 | 388 | 400 | (1) (3) (4) (5) |
| Control group | 25.0 ± 5.1 | 384 | 10 u oxytocin, i.v. |
Figure 2Risk of bias summary and risk of bias graph.
Figure 3The pooled standard mean difference of blood loss for 7 studies.
Figure 4The pooled standard mean difference of the time of the third stage of labor for 5 studies.
Figure 5The pooled rate of blood transfusion for 9 studies.
Figure 6The pooled rate of shivering for 9 studies.
Figure 7The pooled rate of vomiting for 9 studies.
Figure 8The funnel plot for publication bias.