ArticleInternational journal of women's health2011
Randomized clinical trial evaluating the frequency of membrane sweeping with an unfavorable cervix at 39 weeks.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2011. 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the widely accepted use of membrane sweeping to prevent postmaturity pregnancies, the optimal frequency for this procedure has not been established.
aimTo determine if the frequency of membrane sweeping in women with an unfavorable cervix at term results in fewer labor inductions.
methodsThis was a randomized trial of women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop's score of ≤4) at 39 weeks randomized into three groups: control, once-weekly membrane sweeping, and twice-weekly membrane sweeping.
resultsBetween January 2005 and June 2008, 350 women were randomized into the study (groups: control [n = 116], once weekly [n = 117], and twice weekly [n = 117]). Randomization of Bishop's score was different between groups (P = 0.019), with 67%, 71%, and 83% of control, once-, and twice-weekly groups, respectively, having scores of 3-4. There was no difference in the unadjusted rate of labor induction between the groups (35% versus 27% versus 23%, P = 0.149), and after the adjustment for the randomization of Bishop's score (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.29 and OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.36-1.18 for once- and twice-weekly groups, respectively). A Bishop's score of 3-4 at randomization was the only statistically significant factor that decreased the likelihood of induction at 41 weeks (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.69).
conclusionFrequency of membrane sweeping does not influence the likelihood of remaining undelivered at 41 weeks of pregnancy. The Bishop's score at around 39 weeks is the important factor as a predictor of the duration of pregnancy, and further studies would be required to determine whether membrane sweeping influences pregnancy duration.
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.