Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11405964›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.

M Boulvain, C Stan, O Irion

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M BoulvainUnité de Développement en Obstétrique, Maternité Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Département de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique, Boulevard de la Cluse, 32, Geneva 14, Switzerland, CH-1211. michel.boulvain@hcuge.ch
C Stan
O Irion

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology. Sweeping of the membranes, also commonly named stripping of the membranes, is a relatively simple technique usually performed without admission to hospital. During vaginal examination, the clinician's finger is introduced into the cervical os. Then, the inferior pole of the membranes is detached from the lower uterine segment by a circular movement of the examining finger. This intervention has the potential to initiate labour by increasing local production of prostaglandins and, thus, reduce pregnancy duration or pre-empt formal induction of labour with either oxytocin, prostaglandins or amniotomy.

objectivesTo determine the effects of membrane sweeping for third trimester induction of labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant papers (last searched November 2000). SELECTION CRITERIA: The criteria for inclusion included the following: (1) clinical trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester labour induction with no vaginal examination or vaginal examination for cervical assessment only or with other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods (i.e. administration of prostaglandins and oxytocin); (2) random allocation to the treatment or control group; (3) adequate or unclear allocation concealment; (4) violations of allocated management not sufficient to materially affect conclusions; (5) clinically meaningful outcome measures reported; (6) data available for analysis according to the random allocation; (7) missing data insufficient to materially affect the conclusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The data extraction was done centrally and incorporated into a series of reviews arranged by methods of induction of labour, following a standardised methodology. Two of the reviewers also assessed trial quality and extracted data. To avoid duplication of data in the reviews, the labour induction methods have been listed in a specific order, from one to 25. Each review includes comparisons between one of the methods with only those methods above it on the list. Therefore, sweeping of membranes was compared to no treatment, intravaginal prostaglandins and oxytocin. Results are reported as relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT). MAIN

resultsNineteen trials were included, 17 comparing sweeping of membranes with no treatment, three comparing sweeping with prostaglandins and one comparing sweeping with oxytocin (two studies reported more than one comparison). Risk of caesarean section was similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28). Sweeping of the membranes, performed as a general policy in women at term, was associated with reduced duration of pregnancy and reduced frequency of pregnancy continuing beyond 41 weeks (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.79) and 42 weeks (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.50). To avoid one formal induction of labour, sweeping of membranes must be performed in seven women (NNT = 7). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of maternal or neonatal infection. Discomfort during vaginal examination and other adverse effects (bleeding, irregular contractions) were more frequently reported by women allocated to sweeping. Studies comparing sweeping with prostaglandin administration are of limited sample size and do not provide evidence of benefit. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsRoutine use of sweeping of membranes from 38 weeks of pregnancy onwards does not seem to produce clinically important benefits. When used as a means for induction of labour, the reduction in the use of more formal methods of induction needs to be balanced against women's discomfort and other adverse effects.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, ProlongedExtraembryonic MembranesFemaleHumansLabor, InducedPregnancy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.