Skip to main content
. 2012 Aug 15;2012(8):CD000494. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000494.pub4

WHO 2001.

Methods Random allocation sequence, generated centrally. Sequentially‐numbered, identical treatment packs drawn from a treatment pack dispenser. Double blinding achieved by use of double placebos.
Participants 18,530 women expecting vaginal delivery in 9 countries. Countries were Argentina, China, Egypt, Ireland, Nigeria, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, and Vietnam. 
 Exclusion criteria: pyrexia (> 38 degrees C) on admission to labour ward, severe asthma, bleeding disorders, elective caesarean section, no consent.
Interventions Misoprostol 600 mcg orally + placebo IV/IM, vs oxytocin 10 IU IV/IM + placebo tablets.
Outcomes Blood loss, shivering, pyrexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, need for transfusion, manual removal of placenta, exploration under general anaesthesia, hysterectomy, admission to ICU, maternal deaths. 
 Measurement of blood loss: collected blood poured in standard measuring jar. Small gauze swabs soaked with blood put into measuring jar and included in measurement. Linen weighed in some centres.
Notes Management of third stage: uterotonics, clamping and cutting of cord immediately after delivery, fundal or suprapubic pressure with cord traction after signs of placental separation.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random allocation sequence, generated centrally.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sequentially‐numbered, identical treatment packs drawn from a treatment pack dispenser.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double blinding achieved by use of double placebos.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 50/9264 (0.54%) excluded after randomisation in the misoprostol group, 37 because of an emergency caesarean section, and 13 for loss to follow‐up. 
 38/9226 (0.41%) excluded after randomisation in the oxytocin group, 34 for emergency caesarean section and 4 lost to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Primary outcomes of the review were reported.
Other bias Low risk The 2 groups were comparable.