J Clin Gynecol Obstet

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, ISSN 1927-1271 print, 1927-128X online, Open Access

Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Gynecol Obstet and Elmer Press Inc

Journal website https://jcgo.elmerpub.com

Original Article

Volume 14, Number 4, December 2025, pages 167-175

Comparative Analysis of Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel and Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction in a Primigravida at Term

↓ **Table 1.** Distribution of Baseline Pre-Induction Data of the Study Population
Variables	Groups	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	P-value
Age (years)	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	23.98	3.86	> 0.46
	Dinoprostone gel	100	23.62	3.01
Period of gestation (weeks)	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	38.73	1.09	> 0.89
	Dinoprostone gel	100	38.75	0.97
Bishop score	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	4.69	0.95	> 0.17
	Dinoprostone gel	100	4.08	1.01
Duration of labor (h)	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	12.38	4.55	> 0.10
	Dinoprostone gel	100	15.49	3.72

↓ Table 1. Distribution of Baseline Pre-Induction Data of the Study Population

Variables

Groups

Number

Mean

Standard deviation

P-value

Age (years)

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

23.98

3.86

> 0.46

Dinoprostone gel

100

23.62

3.01

Period of gestation (weeks)

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

38.73

1.09

> 0.89

Dinoprostone gel

100

38.75

0.97

Bishop score

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

4.69

0.95

> 0.17

Dinoprostone gel

100

4.08

1.01

Duration of labor (h)

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

12.38

4.55

> 0.10

Dinoprostone gel

100

15.49

3.72

↓ **Table 2.** Change in Bishop Score in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Change in Bishop score	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	99 (99.0%)	1 (1.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 6.37 df = 1 P-valve < 0.01
Dinoprostone gel	91 (91.0%)	9 (9.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	190 (95.0%)	10 (5.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 2. Change in Bishop Score in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Change in Bishop score

Total

Statistical test

Yes

Intravaginal misoprostol

99 (99.0%)

1 (1.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 6.37
df = 1
P-valve < 0.01

Dinoprostone gel

91 (91.0%)

9 (9.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

190 (95.0%)

10 (5.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 3.** Induction to Active Phase of Labor in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Induction to active phase of labor	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	75 (75.0%)	25 (25.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 0.89 df = 1 P-valve = 0.43
Dinoprostone gel	69 (69.0%)	31 (31.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	144 (72.0%)	56 (28.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 3. Induction to Active Phase of Labor in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Induction to active phase of labor

Total

Statistical test

Yes

Intravaginal misoprostol

75 (75.0%)

25 (25.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 0.89
df = 1
P-valve = 0.43

Dinoprostone gel

69 (69.0%)

31 (31.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

144 (72.0%)

56 (28.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 4.** Comparison of Efficacy of Intravaginal Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Gel on Various Parameters of Induction of Labor and Apgar Score of Newborns
Variables	Mode of induction	N	Mean (h)	Standard deviation (h)	t-test
Total duration if induction (years)	Dinoprostone gel	100	15.49	3.72	P-value < 0.05
	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	12.38	4.55
Induction to active phase of labor (h)	Dinoprostone gel	69	8.30	3.82	P-value < 0.05
	Intravaginal misoprostol	74	6.16	3.31
Induction to delivery interval (h)	Dinoprostone gel	100	14.06	3.66	P-value < 0.05
	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	10.84	4.40
Apgar score at 1 min	Dinoprostone gel	100	9.70	0.71	P-value < 0.23
	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	9.55	1.02
Apgar score at 5 min	Dinoprostone gel	100	9.98	0.20	P-value < 0.90
	Intravaginal misoprostol	100	9.86	0.51

↓ Table 4. Comparison of Efficacy of Intravaginal Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Gel on Various Parameters of Induction of Labor and Apgar Score of Newborns

Variables

Mode of induction

Mean (h)

Standard deviation (h)

t-test

Total duration if induction (years)

Dinoprostone gel

100

15.49

3.72

P-value < 0.05

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

12.38

4.55

Induction to active phase of labor (h)

Dinoprostone gel

8.30

3.82

P-value < 0.05

Intravaginal misoprostol

6.16

3.31

Induction to delivery interval (h)

Dinoprostone gel

100

14.06

3.66

P-value < 0.05

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

10.84

4.40

Apgar score at 1 min

Dinoprostone gel

100

9.70

0.71

P-value < 0.23

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

9.55

1.02

Apgar score at 5 min

Dinoprostone gel

100

9.98

0.20

P-value < 0.90

Intravaginal misoprostol

100

9.86

0.51

↓ **Table 5.** Induction to Delivery Interval Groups in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Induction to delivery interval groups (h)	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	61 (61.0%)	33 (33.0%)	6 (6%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 8.89 df = 2 P-value < 0.01
Dinoprostone gel	40 (40.0%)	52 (52.0%)	8 (8%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	101 (50.5%)	85 (42.5%)	14 (7%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 5. Induction to Delivery Interval Groups in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Induction to delivery interval groups (h)

Total

Statistical test

4 - 10

10 - 16

16 - 22

Intravaginal misoprostol

61 (61.0%)

33 (33.0%)

6 (6%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 8.89
df = 2
P-value < 0.01

Dinoprostone gel

40 (40.0%)

52 (52.0%)

8 (8%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

101 (50.5%)

85 (42.5%)

14 (7%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 6.** Need for Oxytocin Augmentation in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Need for oxytocin augmentation	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	67 (67.0%)	33 (33.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 25.47 df = 1 P-value < 0.001
Dinoprostone gel	95 (95.0%)	5 (5.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	140 (72.0%)	60 (28.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 6. Need for Oxytocin Augmentation in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Need for oxytocin augmentation

Total

Statistical test

Yes

Intravaginal misoprostol

67 (67.0%)

33 (33.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 25.47
df = 1
P-value < 0.001

Dinoprostone gel

95 (95.0%)

5 (5.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

140 (72.0%)

60 (28.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 7.** Association of Cesarean Section Rates With the Inducing Agents in Two Groups
Mode of induction	Mode of delivery	Total	Statistical test
FTND: full-term normal delivery; LSCS: lower segment cesarean section.
Intravaginal misoprostol	71 (71.0%)	29 (25.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 0.95 df = 1 P-value = 0.87
Dinoprostone gel	69 (69.0%)	31 (31.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	140 (72.0%)	60 (28.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 7. Association of Cesarean Section Rates With the Inducing Agents in Two Groups

Mode of induction

Mode of delivery

Total

Statistical test

FTND

LSCS

FTND: full-term normal delivery; LSCS: lower segment cesarean section.

Intravaginal misoprostol

71 (71.0%)

29 (25.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 0.95
df = 1
P-value = 0.87

Dinoprostone gel

69 (69.0%)

31 (31.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

140 (72.0%)

60 (28.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 8.** Intrapartum Complications in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Intrapartum complications (tachysystole)	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	98 (98.0%)	2 (2.0%)	100 (100.0%)	Fisher’s exact test P-value = 0.49
Dinoprostone gel	100 (95.0%)	0 (5.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	198 (99.0%)	2 (1.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 8. Intrapartum Complications in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Intrapartum complications (tachysystole)

Total

Statistical test

Absent

Present

Intravaginal misoprostol

98 (98.0%)

2 (2.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Fisher’s exact test
P-value = 0.49

Dinoprostone gel

100 (95.0%)

0 (5.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

198 (99.0%)

2 (1.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 9.** Postpartum Complications in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Postpartum complications	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	95 (95.0%)	5 (5.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 0 df = 1 P-value = 1
Dinoprostone gel	95 (95.0%)	5 (5.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	190 (95.0%)	10 (5.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 9. Postpartum Complications in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Postpartum complications

Total

Statistical test

Absent

Present

Intravaginal misoprostol

95 (95.0%)

5 (5.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 0
df = 1
P-value = 1

Dinoprostone gel

95 (95.0%)

5 (5.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

190 (95.0%)

10 (5.0%)

200 (100.0%)

↓ **Table 10.** Fetal Outcomes at Birth in Two Groups of Modes of Induction
Mode of induction	Fetal outcomes at birth	Total	Statistical test
Intravaginal misoprostol	82 (82.0%)	18 (18.0%)	100 (100.0%)	χ² = 1.41 df = 1 P-value = 0.32
Dinoprostone gel	88 (88.0%)	12 (12.0%)	100 (100.0%)
Total	170 (85.0%)	30 (15.0%)	200 (100.0%)

↓ Table 10. Fetal Outcomes at Birth in Two Groups of Modes of Induction

Mode of induction

Fetal outcomes at birth

Total

Statistical test

Good

Morbid

Intravaginal misoprostol

82 (82.0%)

18 (18.0%)

100 (100.0%)

χ² = 1.41
df = 1
P-value = 0.32

Dinoprostone gel

88 (88.0%)

12 (12.0%)

100 (100.0%)

Total

170 (85.0%)

30 (15.0%)

200 (100.0%)