Cochrane · systematic review · CD000451
Membrane sweeping for induction of labour
Finucane, EM, Murphy, DJ, Biesty, LM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
35
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
13
Included studies
NR
No studies 13 · 37.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 19 · 54.3%Moderate 3 · 8.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Amniotic membranes sweeping compared to no treatment/sham
Population: pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Spontaneous onset of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 1.21 [1.08, 1.34] | 17 studies · 3170 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Induction of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 0.73 [0.56, 0.94] | 16 studies · 3224 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Caesarean section Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 0.94 [0.85, 1.04] | 32 studies · 5499 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Spontaneous vaginal birth Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07] | 26 studies · 4538 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 0.83 [0.57, 1.2] | 17 studies · 2749 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs no treatment/sham | RR 0.83 [0.59, 1.17] | 18 studies · 3696 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Amniotic membranes sweeping compared to vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour
Population: pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Spontaneous onset of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 1.24 [0.98, 1.57] | 3 studies · 339 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Induction of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 0.9 [0.56, 1.45] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Caesarean section Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 0.69 [0.44, 1.09] | 3 studies · 339 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Spontaneous vaginal birth Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 1.12 [0.95, 1.32] | 2 studies · 252 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 0.93 [0.27, 3.21] | 1 study · 87 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins | RR 0.4 [0.12, 1.33] | 2 studies · 269 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Amniotic membranes sweeping compared to intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy for induction of labour
Population: pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Spontaneous onset of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | RR 1.32 [0.88, 1.96] | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Induction of labour Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | RR 0.51 [0.05, 5.42] | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | RR 0.69 [0.12, 3.85] | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Spontaneous vaginal birth ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart (FHR) rate changes ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs intravenous oxytocin/amniotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Amniotic membranes sweeping compared to vaginal/oral misoprostol for induction of labour
Population: pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Spontaneous onset of labour ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Induction of labour ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Caesarean section Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | RR 0.82 [0.31, 2.17] | 1 study · 96 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Spontaneous vaginal birth ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity ‐ not reported Amniotic membranes sweeping vs vaginal/oral misoprostol | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping compared to another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping for induction of labour
Population: pregnant women carrying a live fetus at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Spontaneous onset of labour ‐ not reported One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Induction of labour One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | RR 1.19 [0.76, 1.85] | 1 study · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | RR 0.93 [0.6, 1.46] | 1 study · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Spontaneous vaginal birth One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | RR 1 [0.86, 1.17] | 1 study · 234 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes ‐ not reported One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | RR 0.78 [0.3, 2.02] | 1 study · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping vs another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping | RR 2 [0.18, 21.76] | 1 study · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |