title: The misoprostol vaginal insert: déjà vu all over again.
authors: Dr. Rouse is the Associate Editor (Obstetrics) of Obstetrics & Gynecology; e-mail: drouse@greenjournal.org.
authors: Dwight J
authors: DJ
authors: Rouse
mesh_terms: D015232:Dinoprostone / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007751:Labor, Induced / Q000379:methods*; D016595:Misoprostol / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D010120:Oxytocics / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D011247:Pregnancy
chemical_list: D010120:Oxytocics; D016595:Misoprostol; D015232:Dinoprostone
references: Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, Miller H, Rugarn O, Powers BL. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:201–209.
references: Cohen AW, Copel JA, Macones GA, Menard MK, Riley L, Saade GR. Unjustified increase in cost of care resulting from U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of Makena (17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate). Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1408–12.
references: Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011;118:647–54.
references: Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:671–7.
references: Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:705–9.