SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005
Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03517696 (Membrane Sweeping in Early Labor and Delivery Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Membrane Sweeping in Early Labor and Delivery Outcomes
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 250 citations in OpenAlex.
- Membrane sweeping in term pregnancy to promote spontaneous labor and prevent post-term pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Twice-Weekly Versus Once-Weekly Membrane Sweeping in the Prevention of Post-Term Pregnancy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Pooled it
- Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Acupuncture or acupressure for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2011Pooled it
- Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Mifepristone for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006Pooled it
- Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005Pooled it
- Oral prostaglandin E2 for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
- Homoeopathy for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
- Oestrogens alone or with amniotomy for cervical ripening or induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
- Extra-amniotic prostaglandin for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSweeping of the membranes, also 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. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology.
objectivesTo determine the effects of membrane sweeping for third trimester induction of labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (6 July 2004) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction. MAIN
resultsTwenty-two trials (2797 women) were included, 20 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 (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.15). 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 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74) 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 eight women (NNT = 8). 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. AUTHORS'
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.