Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
A comparative study of vaginal misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin for induction of labour in women with intra uterine fetal death in Mulago Hospital, Uganda
Abstract
Background : Intrauterine fetal death is a major problem in obstetrics particularly in developing countries such as Uganda. Induction of labour in cases of fetal death using the available method of oxytocin is often difficult, expensive and frustrating.
Objectives : To compare the effectiveness of vaginal misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin in induction of labour in women with intrauterine fetal death
Methods : One hundred and twenty mothers were allocated in a randomised controlled way to one of the two induction groups. Oxytocin infusion was titrated based on patient response. The starting dose was 50mcg (1/4 tablet) in misoprostol group and the dose was doubled every six hours till effective contractions were achieved. The two groups were compared for induction to delivery intervals, costs of the drugs and their safety during induction.
Results : The success rate within 48 hours of induction was 100% in the misoprostol group and 96.7% in oxytocin group. The mean induction to delivery time was significantly longer in the oxytocin group compared with the misoprostol group (23.3 versus 12.4 hours; p= 0.004). In the gestational age before 28 weeks, the induction to delivery interval in oxytocin group, was more than twice that used in misoprostol. However beyond 28 weeks, there was no significant difference.
Women with intact membranes had induction to delivery interval of 27.9 hours in the oxytocin group and 14.7 hours in the misoprostol group (p=0.002). When the membranes were ruptured, the values were 10.5 and 8.5 hours respectively (p=0.6). The induction to delivery time in cases with Bishops score < 6 was 29.8hours in the oxytocin group and 15.9 hours in misoprostol group (p=0.001). The corresponding values for Bishops scores > 6 were 10 and 7.9 hours respectively (p=0.6). The majority of patients in misoprostol group (62%), required less than one tablet for successful induction. Misoprostol was cheaper (0.65 USD than oxytocin (7.86 USD)
Retained placenta occurred in only 3.3% of the patients in the misoprostol group. There were no cases of ruptured uterus in both groups.
Conclusion : Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective and cheaper than intravenous oxytocin for inducing labour in patients with intrauterine fetal death.
African Health Sciences 2001; 1(2): 55-59
Objectives : To compare the effectiveness of vaginal misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin in induction of labour in women with intrauterine fetal death
Methods : One hundred and twenty mothers were allocated in a randomised controlled way to one of the two induction groups. Oxytocin infusion was titrated based on patient response. The starting dose was 50mcg (1/4 tablet) in misoprostol group and the dose was doubled every six hours till effective contractions were achieved. The two groups were compared for induction to delivery intervals, costs of the drugs and their safety during induction.
Results : The success rate within 48 hours of induction was 100% in the misoprostol group and 96.7% in oxytocin group. The mean induction to delivery time was significantly longer in the oxytocin group compared with the misoprostol group (23.3 versus 12.4 hours; p= 0.004). In the gestational age before 28 weeks, the induction to delivery interval in oxytocin group, was more than twice that used in misoprostol. However beyond 28 weeks, there was no significant difference.
Women with intact membranes had induction to delivery interval of 27.9 hours in the oxytocin group and 14.7 hours in the misoprostol group (p=0.002). When the membranes were ruptured, the values were 10.5 and 8.5 hours respectively (p=0.6). The induction to delivery time in cases with Bishops score < 6 was 29.8hours in the oxytocin group and 15.9 hours in misoprostol group (p=0.001). The corresponding values for Bishops scores > 6 were 10 and 7.9 hours respectively (p=0.6). The majority of patients in misoprostol group (62%), required less than one tablet for successful induction. Misoprostol was cheaper (0.65 USD than oxytocin (7.86 USD)
Retained placenta occurred in only 3.3% of the patients in the misoprostol group. There were no cases of ruptured uterus in both groups.
Conclusion : Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective and cheaper than intravenous oxytocin for inducing labour in patients with intrauterine fetal death.
African Health Sciences 2001; 1(2): 55-59
