Trial reportPloS one2025
Comparing membrane sweep and cervical massage in preventing the need for formal labour induction in uncomplicated pregnancy at term: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAny intervention aimed at maximizing the spontaneous onset of labor and preventing formal induction will be beneficial to the client and welcomed by the provider, because it reduces postmaturity and formal labour induction.
methodsWe recruited and randomized 312 uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 38 weeks of gestation into three groups: membrane sweep (MS), cervical massage (CM), and sham sweep (control). Each intervention was administered at 39 weeks and repeated at 40 weeks of gestation if spontaneous labor, defined as a Modified Bishop's Score of ≥7, did not occur. (Sri Lanka clinical trials registry - SLCTR/2020/003).
resultsThe membrane sweep reduced the need for formal induction, whereas cervical massage did not. (MS vs C RR = 1.4195, 95% CI = 1.0326-1.9513, p = 0.0310; MS vs C OR=1.8739, 95% CI = 1.0664-3.2927, p = 0.0290; Number Needed to Treat = 7; CM vs C RR = 1.2043, 95% CI = 0.8598-1.6867, p = 0.2795). "Survival without spontaneous labor," was lower after the membrane sweep than in controls overall (MS vs C - p = 0.007; CM vs C - p = 0.261), among primiparous (MS vs C p = 0.047; CM vs C p = 0.269) and multiparous (MS vs C p = 0.038; CM vs C p = 0.456) women. The membrane sweep and cervical massage were safe concerning feto-maternal complications and both reduced hospital-stay duration among multiparous women (MS vs C p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.5293-1.1791; CM vs C p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.6816-1.3552). There was no increased risk of emergency cesarean delivery, oxytocin augmentation, uterine hyperstimulation, postpartum bleeding, maternal pyrexia, or Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes (p > 0.05). The membrane sweep was less acceptable compared to cervical massage, regardless of parity (MS vs C Primi p = 0.001, Multi p = 0.0216). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend routine offer of membrane sweep to reduce the need for formal induction in term uncomplicated pregnancies, but clinicians should be aware of its inherent discomfort to women.
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.