Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Aug;105(8):336-47.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2012.120044.

Rethinking WHO guidance: review of evidence for misoprostol use in the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage

Christina S Chu  1 , Petra Brhlikova, Allyson M Pollock
Affiliations
Review

Rethinking WHO guidance: review of evidence for misoprostol use in the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage

Christina S Chu et al. J R Soc Med. 2012 Aug.

Erratum in

  • J R Soc Med. 2012 Nov;105(11):456

Abstract

This article describes and critically appraises clinical trials assessing misoprostol effectiveness in preventing primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in home and community settings in low- and middle-income countries. Of 172 identified studies of misoprostol use in labour only six fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All trials used 600 μg misoprostol in the intervention arm; three assessed misoprostol alongside components of active management of the third-stage labour (AMTSL), two used expectant management of labour and one allowed birth attendants to choose management practice. The three AMTSL studies showed no significant differences in PPH incidence or referral to higher centres and only one study showed significant decrease in severe PPH using misoprostol. One expectant management study and the choice of management by birth attendants study found significant decreases in PPH incidence with misoprostol. All studies showed significantly increased risk of shivering with misoprostol. Studies were biased by use of alternative uterotonics in the control arm, confounding management practices, and subjective assessment and, with one exception, exclusion of high-risk women. PPH incidence fell in both the control and intervention groups in both the landmark papers that informed the World Health Organization (WHO) decision to admit misoprostol to the Essential Medicines List. This suggests factors other than misoprostol use are crucial. Current evidence does not support misoprostol use in home and community settings in low- and middle-income countries for PPH prevention. WHO should rethink its recent decision to include misoprostol on the Essential Medicines List.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic of literature search
Figure 2
Figure 2
From Derman study showing temporal trends over the course of the trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Hogan M, Foreman K, Naghavi M, et al. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. Lancet 2010;375:1609–23 - PubMed
    1. Hill K, Thomas K, Abou Zahr C, et al. Estimates of maternal mortality worldwide between 1990 and 2005: an assessment of available data. Lancet 2007;370:1311–9 - PubMed
    1. WHO The World Health Report 2005. Make every mother and child count 2005 See http://www.who.int/whr/2005/whr2005_en.pdf (last accessed 3 July 2012)
    1. Brabin B, Hakimi M, Pelletier D An analysis of anemia and pregnancy-related maternal mortality. J Nutr 2001;131:604S–14S - PubMed
    1. WHO Worldwide Prevalence of Anaemia 1993–2005: WHO Global Database on Anaemia. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2008

Publication types