Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15674873›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.

M Boulvain, C Stan, O Irion

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT03517696 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Membrane Sweeping in Early Labor and Delivery Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohns Hopkins UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled0ConditionsEarly LaborArmsMembrane sweeping
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 250 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Acupuncture or acupressure for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  9. Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  10. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2011
    Pooled it
  11. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  12. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  13. Mifepristone for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  14. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  15. Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006
    Pooled it
  16. Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  17. Oral prostaglandin E2 for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  18. Homoeopathy for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Extra-amniotic prostaglandin for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

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
Centre Médical de Vidy · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Extraembryonic MembranesPregnancy, ProlongedFemaleHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15674873
PMCPMC7032890
OpenAlexW2145724799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.