Skip to content

Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Prior to Copper Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women

Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Prior to Copper Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women:a Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04080336
Enrollment
129
Registered
2019-09-06
Start date
2019-09-10
Completion date
2020-01-20
Last updated
2020-06-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

IUD Insertion Complication

Brief summary

To compare the effect of vaginal dinoprostone versus vaginal misoprostol administered before the copper intrauterine device(IUD) insertion in reducing IUD inertion pain and the difficulty in inserting the IUD in nulliparous women.

Detailed description

Long-acting reversible contraception methods are highly effective methods for reduction of the unplanned pregnancy rate worldwide. The intrauterine device is a single procedure that provides reliable, effective and long term contraception for many women. However, the insertion procedure can be associated with a troublesome degree of pain that prevent some women from choosing its use. Different interventions have been described to decrease pain perception during intrauterine device insertion with no agreement on an effective one.

Interventions

DRUGDinoprostone

1 vaginal tablet of dinoprostone (3mg) (prostin® E2, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Puurs, Belgium) inserted by the study nurse 3hours before IUD insertion.

DRUGMisoprostol

1 vaginal tablet of misoprostol (200mcg) (Misotac®; Sigma Pharma, SAE, Egypt) inserted by the study nurse 3 hours before IUD insertion.

DRUGplacebo

one tablet of placebo inserted by the study nurse 3 hours before IUD insertion.

Sponsors

Cairo University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* nulliparous women requesting copper IUD insertion

Exclusion criteria

* pregnancy, Parous women, contraindications or allergy to dinoprostone or misoprostol,contraindication to IUD insertion, untreated active cervicitis or vaginitis, undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The difference in pain scores during intrauterine device insertion10 minutesThe difference in pain scores during intrauterine device insertion using visual analog scale from 0 to 10

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
the difference in pain scores during tenaculum application10 minutesThe difference in pain scores during tenaculum application using a visual analog scale from 0 to 10
the difference in pain scores during sound insertion10 minutesThe difference in pain scores during sound insertion using a visual analog scale from 0 to 10
the ease of IUD insertion10 minutesthe ease of IUD insertion using ease of insertion score from 0 to 10 cm (0 = very easy insertion, 10 cm = terribly difficult insertion)
women's satisfaction level10 minuteswomen's satisfaction level using satisfaction score from 0 to 10 cm where 0 denotes no satisfaction and 10 denotes maximum satisfaction

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026