American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
-
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. · Jun 1995
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMisoprostol: an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction.
Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (dinoprostone) for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor. ⋯ Intravaginal administration of misoprostol appears to be as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Complications associated with prostaglandin administration were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The cost of misoprostol ($0.36/100 micrograms) is much less than that of dinoprostone ($75/0.5 mg).
-
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. · Jun 1995
Clinical TrialTrial of labor after cesarean delivery with a lower-segment, vertical uterine incision: is it safe?
Our purpose was to assess maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor and attempted vaginal birth after prior low-segment vertical cesarean delivery. ⋯ Our experience indicates that a mother with a prior low-segment vertical cesarean delivery can undertake a trial of labor with relative maternal-perinatal safety. The likelihood of successful outcome and the incidence of complications are comparable to those of published experience with a trial of labor after a previous low-segment transverse incision.
-
Medical malpractice lawsuits generally require expert testimony. Defendants and plaintiffs deserve expert testimony that is exacting, accurate, and consistent. A study of four frequently testifying experts was undertaken with review of depositions, reports, and trial transcripts of those experts. ⋯ The review suggested that expert testimony regarding the standard of care may be neither reliable nor accurate for the purposes of judging physician conduct is lawsuits. Presently, no peer review or sanction process has been implemented to ensure accuracy and reliability of expert testimony used in medical malpractice lawsuits. We recommend changes that would include independent court-appointed experts, central filing of opinion letters by experts with authoritative text citations, and a sanction process by courts and/or authorized boards for testimony that is deemed inaccurate, false, or contradictory to the standard of care.