Cochrane · systematic review · CD010088
Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Moncrieff, G, Gyte, GML, Dahlen, HG, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · 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
28
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
16
Included studies
NR
No studies 16 · 57.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 21.4%Low 6 · 21.4%Moderate 0 · 0%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
Routine vaginal examination compared to routine ultrasound for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Population: pregnant women, multiparous, in labour at term
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Positive birth experience (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Augmentation of labour (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Spontaneous vaginal birth (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Chorioamnionitis (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Admission to NICU (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal pain (primary outcome)№ of participants: 83(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examination vs routine ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Routine vaginal examination compared to routine rectal examination for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Population: pregnant women in labour at term
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Women's positive experiences№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Augmentation of labour (primary outcome)№ of participants: 307(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | RR 1.03 [0.63, 1.68] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Spontaneous vaginal birth (primary outcome)№ of participants: 307(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | RR 0.98 [0.9, 1.06] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Chorioamnionitis (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: 307(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | RR 0.33 [0.01, 8.07] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit№ of participants: 307(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | RR 1.32 [0.47, 3.73] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maternal pain (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 RCTs) Routine vaginal examination vs routine rectal examination | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations compared to routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Population: primiparous pregnant women in labour at term
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Positive birth experience (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Augmentation of labour (primary outcome)№ of participants: 109(1 RCT) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | RR 0.97 [0.6, 1.57] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Spontaneous vaginal birth (primary outcome)№ of participants: 150(1 RCT) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | RR 1.02 [0.83, 1.26] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Chorioamnionitis (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Admission to NICU (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Maternal pain (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine 4‐hourly vaginal examinations vs routine 2‐hourly vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Routine vaginal examinations compared to vaginal examinations as indicated for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Population: primiparous pregnant women in labour at term
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Positive birth experience (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Augmentation of labour (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | RR 2.55 [1.03, 6.31] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Spontaneous vaginal birth (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | RR 1.08 [0.73, 1.59] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Chorioamnionitis (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | RR 3.06 [0.13, 74.21] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | RR 4.08 [0.46, 35.87] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Admission to NICU (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | RR 2.04 [0.63, 6.56] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Maternal pain (primary outcome)№ of participants: (0 studies) Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |