Effect of Castor Oil on Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024)

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

J Pharmacopuncture. 2022 Jun 30; 25(2): 71–78.

Published online 2022 Jun 30. doi:10.3831/KPI.2022.25.2.71

PMCID: PMC9240406

PMID: 35837141

Maryam Moradi,^1,² Azin Niazi,^2,^* Ehsan Mazloumi,³ and Violeta Lopez⁴

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Objectives

Post-term pregnancy is a condition associated with increased maternal and fetal complications. Administration of castor oil causes cervical stimulation by increasing the production of prostaglandins. We examined the effects of castor oil on cervical ripening and labor induction through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

The search process was performed to obtain relevant articles from databases including Pubmed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Science direct, SID, Iran Medex, and Google Scholar using the English keywords of cervical ripening, post-term, castor oil, labor induction, Bishop score, and pregnancy considering all possible combinations without time constraints and their Persian equivalents from national databases.

Results

A total of eight related articles from the 19 primary studies were extracted and systematically reviewed. According to a cumulative chart, the difference in the post-intervention Bishop score was statistically significant (standard mean difference [SMD] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-2.11, p = 0.001), indicating an effect of castor oil on increasing the Bishop score. In addition, the difference in labor induction was statistically significant after the intervention (odds ratio 11.67, 95% CI 3.34-40.81, p = 0.001), indicating an effect of castor oil on increasing the odds ratio of labor induction (experience of vagin*l delivery).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that oral administration of castor oil is effective for cervical ripening and labor induction. Midwives should closely monitor pregnant women with prolonged labor and collaborate with obstetricians to employ castor oil as a safe intervention to induce cervical ripening and labor to prevent undue caesarean surgery.

Keywords: cervical ripening, labor induction, bishop score, castor oil, post term pregnancy, systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Labor induction is defined as the commencement of uterine contractions before the spontaneous onset of labor and is indicated in cases where the benefits of giving birth outweigh the benefits of prolonged pregnancy for the mother or fetus [1, 2]. Abnormal prolongation of pregnancy causes leakage of amniotic fluid, acute umbilical cord compression, meconium aspiration, macrosomia, placental insufficiency with fetal growth restriction, and ultimately death [3]. Labor induction can accelerate this process and prevent many complications [4, 5]. Cervical ripening is one of the major stages of labor during the last few weeks of pregnancy [6]. Lack of cervical ripening and labor induction for any reason lead to increased adverse maternal-fetal outcomes and increased need for cesarean sections [7, 8]. One quantitative method for predicting the consequences of labor induction and determining cervical ripening is the Bishop scoring system [1]. Studies have shown that if the cervix is not ripening, the duration of the labor will increase by approximately two to three times [9, 10]. Oxytocin is one of the most commonly used drugs in labor induction. There are several side effects reported for this drug including uterine hyperstimulation, water intoxication, placental abruption, and increased postpartum hemorrhage [11, 12].

In some cases, prostaglandins may not be used in pregnant women due to complications such as nausea and vomiting, fever and chills, blurred vision, diarrhea, and a bitter taste in the mouth [13, 14]. Non-pharmacological methods for cervical ripening and labor induction include espand (steppenraute), dates, flaxweed, and chamomile. Given the limited number of studies and poor methodology, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these plants [15]. Castor oil has been used to induce and accelerate childbirth since ancient Egypt. The precise mechanism of its action at the onset of childbirth is not known but is probably due to increased production of prostaglandins [16, 17]. In a study by Gilad et al., labor induction was achieved in 91% of women who consumed castor oil [17]. In a cohort study conducted between 2005 and 2007, Boel et al. found no significant difference in the time of birth between women receiving castor oil and a control group. In addition, no cases of maternal mortality, uterine rupture, or other harmful effects on the mother or fetus were reported in relation to the use of castor oil [18]. In a study by Okoro et al., a single oral dose of castor oil significantly reduced post-term pregnancy with no adverse effects for the mother or infant [19]. In a systematic review by Kelly et al. regarding the impact of castor oil on labor induction, only three studies met the inclusion criteria [20]. However, these studies revealed an uncertain impact of castor oil. Given the importance of labor induction in line with the World Health Organization 2018 policy to decrease caesarean delivery rates [21], which is also now a problem in Iran, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and summarize the results of clinical trials on the impact of castor oil on cervical ripening and labor induction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to provide materials ranging from analysis and interpretation, problem determination to study, and data collection [22]. The search process was performed to obtain relevant articles from databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Science direct, SID, Iran Medex, and Google Scholar using the English keywords of cervical ripening, post-term, castor oil, labor induction, Bishop score, and pregnancy as well as their Persian equivalents from national databases considering all possible combinations without time constraints using Boolean OR/AND operators. The inclusion criteria were all randomized human clinical trials published in English and Persian that examined the impact of castor oil on cervical ripening and labor induction with a study population of pregnant women with a gestational age greater than 40 weeks without contraindications for labor induction. The exclusion criteria included irrelevant studies, duplicate studies, failure to provide study purpose, and descriptive or qualitative studies.

To select the articles and extract the data, all articles with titles or abstracts containing the keywords were selected by the first author. The articles were initially reviewed on a basis of abstract, and access to the full text. References cited in the identified articles were also reviewed to access more articles in this area. The corresponding authors of the articles were contacted by the third author to seek further information. The quality assessment of and extraction process for the articles were performed independently by all authors. The Cochrane Collaboration’s “Risk of Bias” tool was used to assess the quality of the articles, and the studies were reviewed in terms of selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), implementation (blinding participants and evaluators), detection (blinding statistical analyzer), attrition (post-randomization exclusion), and reporting (selective reporting of outcomes) [23]. Table 1 presents short descriptions (authors/year, location, variables, research sample, intervention group, control group, tool, complications, and results) of the articles included in this review. Data were analyzed with comprehensive meta-analysis software using the I2 index to evaluate heterogeneity between studies and a random-effects model to perform the meta-analysis.

Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in systematic review

Author/year, reference number	Location	Variables	Research sample	Intervention group	Control group	Tool	Complications	Results
Kahnamoyiagdam et al., 2014 [29]	Iran	Labor induction	100 pregnant women with gestational age of 41 weeks and more	A single dose of 60 mL of castor oil with 140 mL of orange juice (n = 50)	Placebo with 2 mL of orange juice (n = 50)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	No mention	Oral administration of castor oil was not effective in labor induction.
Azarkish et al., 2008 [30]	Iran	Cervical ripening and labor induction based on Bishop score	30 pregnant women with gestational age of 41 weeks or more	A single dose of 60 mL of castor oil with fruit juice (n = 15)	No intervention (n = 15)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	Hypertension of the uterine contractions (n = 1), nausea (n = 15) and vomiting (n = 2)	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in cervical ripening and labor induction.
Iravani et al., 2006 [31]	Iran	Cervical ripening and labor induction based on Bishop score	80 pregnant women with postterm pregnancy	A single dose of 60 g of castor oil with 60 g of orange juice (n = 40)	No intervention (n = 40)	Examining the labor induction 12 hours after intervention	Hypertension of the uterine contractions (n = 1), nausea (n = 29) and vomiting (n = 3)	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in cervical ripening and labor induction.
Saberi et al., 2008 [32]	Iran	Labor induction	200 pregnant women with gestational age of 40 weeks or more	A single dose of 60 mL castor oil (n = 100)	No intervention (n = 100)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	No complication	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in labor induction.
Saberi et al., 2008 [33]	Iran	Cervical ripening based on Bishop score	200 pregnant women with gestational age of 40 weeks or more	A single dose of 60 mL castor oil (n = 100)	No intervention (n = 100)	Cervical examination 24 hours after intervention	No complication	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in cervical ripening.
Azhari et al.,2006 [34]	Iran	Cervical ripening and labor induction based on Bishop score	47 pregnant women with gestational age of 40 to 42 weeks	A single dose of 60 mL castor oil (n = 24)	No intervention (n = 23)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	No mention	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in cervical ripening and labor induction.
Gilad et al.,2018 [17]	Israel	Labor induction	81 pregnant women with gestational age of 40 to 41 weeks and 6 days	A single dose of 60 mL castor oil along with orange juice (n = 43)	60 cc of sunflower oil (n = 38)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	No complication	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in labor induction.
Okoro et al., 2019 [19]	Nigeria	Labor induction	211 pregnant women with gestational age of 40 to 41 weeks	A single dose of 60 mL castor oil (n = 105)	No intervention (n = 106)	Examining the labor induction 24 hours after intervention	No complication	Oral administration of castor oil was effective in labor induction.

Open in a separate window

RESULTS

The PRISMA study flow chart is illustrated in Fig. 1. In total, 314 articles were identified after the primary search; 16 of these were considered eligible articles after eliminating duplicate and irrelevant studies. Eight articles were excluded because seven articles were retrospective studies or reviews [15, 20, 21, 24-27] studies and one article had poor methodology [28]. Ultimately, eight articles related to the effects of castor oil on labor induction and cervical ripening (sample size = 902) were systematically reviewed [17, 19, 29-34]. Four of the eight articles were reviewed for the Bishop score (cervical ripening) [30, 31, 33, 34], and seven articles were reviewed for labor induction [17, 19, 29-32, 34].

Effect of Castor Oil on Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis (3)

Open in a separate window

Figure 1

Study selection procedure (PRISMA flowchart).

For the risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration’s “Risk of Bias” tool, the random sequences of two studies were considered ambiguous because there were no explanations of randomization [30, 31]. Four studies were considered to have low bias due to the use of method and allocation concealment, such as random sequence generation software [17, 19] and envelopes [32, 33] to assign individuals to the control and intervention groups. Two studies were considered to have high bias due to the allocation of individuals on the basis of even and odd days [29, 34]. Three studies were considered ambiguous because of insufficient information to judge [30, 31, 34]. One double-blind study [17] and two single-blind studies were found to have low implementation bias [29, 30]. Regarding detection bias, the allocation of the treatment or control groups in the two studies was not clear [29, 30]. In terms of attrition bias, the participants who participated in two studies were aware of the time of randomization to the time of analysis of the results [32, 34]. Three studies [17, 19, 31] reported the number of dropouts and reasons for dropout; therefore, these studies were assessed to have low bias in terms of attrition bias. In reviewing reporting bias, all eight published articles apparently contained all expected outcomes; thus, they were considered to be unbiased. In summary, the risk of bias for each study is presented in Figs. 2 and and33.

Effect of Castor Oil on Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis (4)

Open in a separate window

Figure 2

Risk of bias graph; review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented in percentages across all studies.

Effect of Castor Oil on Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis (5)

Open in a separate window

Figure 3

Risk of bias summary; review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

DISCUSSION

The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the results of eight clinical trials on the impact of castor oil on cervical ripening and labor induction. In six studies, castor oil caused labor induction [17, 19, 30-32, 34], confirming a possible association between intestinal prostaglandin production due to castor oil consumption and its effects on uterine activity. Increased prostaglandin, platelet-activating factor, and nitric oxide levels play important roles in cervical ripening and labor induction [34-36]. Iravani et al. (2006) showed that oral administration of castor oil significantly initiated regular and effective spontaneous uterine contractions in an intervention group compared with a control group [31]. The increase in the rate of labor induction during post-term pregnancy in the castor oil group was significant in three studies [30, 32, 34]. Okoro et al. (2019) showed that women receiving castor oil progressed significantly more towards childbirth than those in the control group within 24 hours of the intervention [19]. Gilad et al. [17] found that the administration of castor oil was more effective in labor induction in multiparous women. These studies support that the onset of uterine contractions after the administration of castor oil can be attributed to prostaglandin production [17, 19, 30-32, 34]. In contrast, in another study, oral administration of castor oil had no significant effect on labor induction [29]. The possible reason might be due to the failure of the tocometer device to accurately measure the onset time and severity of uterine contractions. In terms of the Bishop score in pregnant women who received castor oil, an increased Bishop score indicated cervical ripening in four studies [30, 31, 33, 34]. Cervical ripening in pregnant women did not increase the risk of caesarean section and did not decrease the neonatal Apgar score [30, 31, 33, 34].

One of the most important objectives of a meta-analysis is to provide reliable and accurate results from a large sample size by the combination of different studies to reduce the confidence interval of the samples and solve problems arising from controversial results of previous studies [37]. Therefore, the findings of four studies [30, 31, 33, 34] investigating the effects of castor oil on the Bishop score with a similar methods were combined in the meta-analysis. The results of these studies found statistically significant differences in Bishop scores and labor induction after the intervention. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified the use of castor oil as a safe laxative [38]. There were no complications in the four studies reviewed [17, 19, 32, 33]. Complications reported in two studies were hypertension, uterine contractions, nausea, and vomiting [30, 31].

The Cochrane Collaboration’s “Risk of Bias” tool was used to assess the quality of the reviewed articles [23]. Most studies had proper methodology. Ambiguous bias was present in two studies in terms of random sequence generation and three studies in terms of allocation concealment. Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size and stronger methodology can provide additional stronger evidence in identifying the effects of castor oil on cervical ripening and labor induction.

CONCLUSION

Uterine contractions before the onset the spontaneous labor are indicated in cases where the benefits of giving birth outweigh the benefits of prolonged pregnancy. Cervical ripening before the induction of labor and termination of pregnancy at different gestation periods reduces maternal and foetal complications including the need for caesarean section. The administration of a non-pharmacological intervention using a single dose of 60 mL of orally administered castor oil induces cervical ripening and labor. Nurse managers should encourage midwives to closely monitor pregnant women with prolonged labor and collaborate with obstetricians regarding the use of castor oil as a safe intervention to induce cervical ripening and labor to prevent undue caesarean surgery.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the Deputy of Research at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences for funding the current project.

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declared no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

FUNDING

The present paper is result of a research project that it was ratified by the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Student Research Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with code of 981053.

REFERENCES

1. Cunningham FG, Leveno K, Bloom S, Spong C, Dashe J, Hoffman B, et al. Williams obstetrics, 25th Edition. 25th ed. McGraw Hill; New York: 2018. p. 1344. [Google Scholar]

2. Mollart LJ. University of Technology Sydney; [Sydney]: 2018. Acupressure for post-date pregnancy: a sequential mixed-methods feasibility study [dissertation] [Google Scholar]

3. Mya KS, Laopaiboon M, Vogel JP, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. Management of pregnancy at and beyond 41 completed weeks of gestation in low-risk women: a secondary analysis of two WHO multi-country surveys on maternal and newborn health. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):141. doi:10.1186/s12978-017-0394-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Haney AF, Nygaard IE. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. 10th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia: 2008. [Google Scholar]

5. Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Huang CC, Auguste TC, Bauer D, Overcash RT. Predicting vagin*l delivery in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor at term. Am J Perinatol. 2018;35(7):660–8. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1608847. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Tan TC, Yan SY, Chua TM, Biswas A, Chong YS. A randomised controlled trial of low-dose misoprostol and dinoprostone vagin*l pessaries for cervical priming. BJOG. 2010;117:1270–7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02602.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Faúndes A, Morais SS, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America. BJOG. 2009;116(13):1762–72. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02348.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Al-Shaikh GK, Wahabi HA, Fayed AA, Esmaeil SA, Al-Malki GA. Factors associated with successful induction of labor. Saudi Med J. 2012;33(3):298–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. PonMalar J, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Rathore S, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews JE. Randomized double-blind placebo controlled study of preinduction cervical priming with 25 µg of misoprostol in the outpatient setting to prevent formal induction of labour. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):33–8. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4173-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(3):739–53. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2341-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Gilstrop M, Sciscione A. Induction of labor--pharmacology methods. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(6):463–5. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Patel S, Godcharles C, McDowell M, Miladinovic B, Holmstrom S. Induction of labor methods: double balloon catheter versus double balloon catheter with concurrent oxytocin [26L] Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:104S–105S. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000483435.77009.21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Shin HJ, Lee SR, Roh AM, Lim YM, Jeong KA, Moon HS, et al. Anaphylactic shock to vagin*l misoprostol: a rare adverse reaction to a frequently used drug. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018;61(5):636–40. doi:10.5468/ogs.2018.61.5.636. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Thorbiörnson A, Vladic T, Stjernholm YV. Oral versus vagin*l prostaglandin for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(7):789–92. doi:10.1080/14767058.2016.1190823. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Ghasemi V, Fakari FR, Ebadi A, Ozgoli G, Kariman N, Gharenaz MS. Effective interventions for the induction of labor: a systematic review. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2018;21(1):90–104. [Google Scholar]

16. Tunaru S, Althoff TF, Nüsing RM, Diener M, Offermanns S. Castor oil induces laxation and uterus contraction via ricinoleic acid activating prostaglandin EP3 receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(23):9179–84. doi:10.1073/pnas.1201627109. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Gilad R, Hochner H, Savitsky B, Porat S, Hochner-Celnikier D. Castor oil for induction of labor in post-date pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Women Birth. 2018;31(1):e26–31. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2017.06.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Boel ME, Lee SJ, Rijken MJ, Paw MK, Pimanpanarak M, Tan SO, et al. Castor oil for induction of labor: not harmful, not helpful. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010;65(2):77–8. doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000368137.31846.18. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Okoro OS, Ugwu E, Dim C, Ozumba B, Nkwo P, Ajah L, et al. Effectiveness of castor oil in preventing post-term pregnancy in low resource setting: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Med Res. 2019;7(2):37–43. [Google Scholar]

20. Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(7):CD003099. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003099.pub2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Neri I, Dante G, Pignatti L, Salvioli C, Facchinetti F. Castor oil for induction of labour: a retrospective study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(16):2105–8. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1336223. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Asar S, Jalalpour S, Ayoubi F, Rahmani M, Rezaeian M. PRISMA; preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci. 2016;15(1):68–80. [Google Scholar]

23. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. DeMaria AL, Sundstrom B, Moxley GE, Banks K, Bishop A, Rathbun L. Castor oil as a natural alternative to labor induction: a retrospective descriptive study. Women Birth. 2018;31(2):e99–104. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2017.08.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Sultana A, Begum M, Sultana S, Asma K. Usefulness of polyherbal Unani formulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour: a uncontrolled study. Altern Integ Med. 2015;4(1):1000184. doi:10.4172/2327-5162.1000184. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Hall HG, McKenna LG, Griffiths DL. Complementary and alternative medicine for induction of labour. Women Birth. 2012;25(3):142–8. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.03.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Boltman-Binkowski H. A systematic review: are herbal and homeopathic remedies used during pregnancy safe? Curationis. 2016;39(1):1514. doi:10.4102/curationis.v39i1.1514. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Lamadah SM, El-Azim Mohamed HA, El-Khedr SM. Castor oil safety and effectiveness on labour induction and neonatal outcome. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2014;4(4):1–10. [Google Scholar]

29. Kahnamoyiagdam F, Aghamohammadi M, Rostamnejad M. The effect of castor oil on the induction of labor: a clinical trial. Nurs Midwifery J. 2014;12(5):348–53. [Google Scholar]

30. Azarkish F, Absalan N, Roudbari M, Barahooie F, Mirlashari S, Bameri M. Effect of oral castor oil on labor pain in post term pregnancy. Sci J Kurd Univ Med Sci. 2008;13(3):1–6. [Google Scholar]

31. Iravani M, Montazeri S, Afshari P, Souri H. A study on the safety and efficacy of castor oil for cervical ripening and labour induction. Jundishapur Sci Med J. 2006;5(1):398–404. [Google Scholar]

32. Saberi F, Abedzadeh M, Sadat Z, Eslami A. Effect of castor oil on induction of labor. J Kashan Univ Med Sci. 2008;11(4):19–23. [Google Scholar]

33. Saberi F, Abedzadeh M, Saadat Z. The use of castor oil on cervical ripening in pregnancies. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2008;18(63):11–9. [Google Scholar]

34. Azhari S, Pirdadeh S, Lotfalizadeh M, Shakeri MT. Evaluation of the effect of castor oil on initiating labor in term pregnancy. Saudi Med J. 2006;27(7):1011–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Conceição M, Dantas M, Rosenhaim R, Fernandes V, Santos I, Souza A. Evaluation of the oxidative induction time of the ethilic castor biodiesel. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;97(2):643–6. doi:10.1007/s10973-009-0362-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Sicuranza GB, Figueroa R. Uterine rupture associated with castor oil ingestion. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13(2):133–4. doi:10.1080/jmf.13.2.133.134. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Grove SK, Gray J. Understanding nursing research: building an evidence-based practice, First South Asia Edition. Elsevier India; New Delhi: 2019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Zamawe C, King C, Jennings HM, Mandiwa C, Fottrell E. Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e022499. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022499. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Pharmacopuncture are provided here courtesy of Korean Pharmacopuncture Institute