Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research

Register      Login

VOLUME 48 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction

Sujata Siwatch, Goter Doke

Citation Information : Siwatch S, Doke G. Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2014; 48 (1):33-36.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1097

Published Online: 00-03-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.



This study compares the eficacy and safety of sublingual vs oral misoprostol for induction of labor.

Materials and methods

160 women admitted for induction of labor at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh were randomized to receive 25 µg misoprostol orally 3 hourly or 25 µg sublingual misoprostol 4 hourly for labor induction.


The two groups were compared for number of women not delivered in 24 hours, misoprostol dose required, induction delivery interval, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes.


Low dose of misoprostol is eficacious with both routes of administration. Majority women delivered vaginally and of them, comparable numbers in both vaginal and sublingual misoprostol groups delivered within 24 hours of induction (93.1 and 83.7%). The sublingual route is associated with a statistically signiicant lesser induction to delivery interval (14.8 ± 6.2 hours vs 17.67 ± 7.32 hours) and lesser requirement of oxytocin augmentation (62.5 vs 35%). The occurrence of uterine contraction abnormalities and neonatal outcome was similar in both groups.


The low dose of 25 µg is eficacious and safe by both sublingual and oral routes. Sublingual route has lesser induction to delivery interval and lesser requirement for oxytocin augmentation.

How to cite this article

Siwatch S, Doke G, Kalra J Bagga R. Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2014;48(1):33-36.

PDF Share
  1. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186: 72-76.
  2. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2002;109: 645-650.
  3. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 Oct 8;(4):CD004221.
  4. Sublingual versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in prelabour rupture of membranes at term. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010 Apr;20(4):242-245.
  5. Sublingual compared with oral and vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007 May;97(2):153-154.
  6. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral and vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:88-92.
  7. The pharmacokinetics of the prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol in plasma and colostrums after postpartum oral administration. Eur J Obstet Gycecol Reprod Biol 2003;108:25-28.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.