Membrane sweeping for induction of labour
Background Induction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2020-02, Vol.2020 (3), p.CD000451 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Induction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers into the cervix and using a continuous circular sweeping motion detaches the inferior pole of the membranes from the lower uterine segment. This produces hormones that encourage effacement and dilatation potentially promoting labour. This review is an update to a review first published in 2005.
Objectives
To assess the effects and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labour in women at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).
Search methods
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (25 February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 February 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Selection criteria
Randomised and quasi‐randomised controlled trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed on a predefined list of labour induction methods. Cluster‐randomised trials were eligible, but none were identified.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Main results
We included 44 studies (20 new to this update), reporting data for 6940 women and their infants. We used random‐effects throughout.
Overall, the risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear risk in most domains across studies. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, was found to be generally low, mainly due to study design, inconsistency and imprecision. Six studies (n = 1284) compared membrane sweeping with more than one intervention and were thus included in more than one comparison.
No trials reported on the outcomes uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) change, uterine rupture or neonatal encephalopathy.
Forty studies (6548 participants) compared membrane sweeping with no treatment/sham
Women randomised to membrane sweeping may be more likely to experience:
· spontaneous onset of labour (average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21, 95% confidenc |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1465-1858 1469-493X 1465-1858 1469-493X |
DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3 |