• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • 0 CME Hours
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
#Grand Rounds

2020 Cochrane Review Update: How Does Membrane Sweeping Compare to Other Methods of Induction?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • In an update to a 2005 review, Finucane et al. (Cochrane Reviews, 2020) assess the efficacy and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labor in women at or near term (≥36 weeks’ gestation)

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Data sources
    • Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) through 25 February 2019
  • Inclusion criteria
    • Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials
    • Trials that compared membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labor induction with
      • Placebo/no treatment
      • Other methods of labor induction
  • Study design and data analysis
    • 2 review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data
    • Random-effects modelling was used throughout
    • Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria

RESULTS:

  • 44 studies (20 new to this update) | 6940 women

Membrane Sweeping vs No Treatment or Sham (40 studies)

Women in membrane sweeping group (low certainty evidence)

  • May be more likely to have spontaneous onset of labor
    • Average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.34)
  • May be less likely to experience induction
    • aRR 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.94)

There may be little to no difference between groups for

  • Cesarean delivery
    • aRR 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04)
  • Spontaneous vaginal birth
    • aRR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07)
  • Maternal death or serious morbidity
    • aRR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.20)
  • Neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity
    • aRR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.17)

Membrane Sweeping vs Vaginal/Intracervical Prostaglandins (4 studies)

There may be little to no difference between groups for (low certainty evidence)

  • Spontaneous onset of labor
    • aRR 1.24 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57)
  • Induction
    • aRR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.45)
  • Cesarean
    • aRR 0.69 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09)
  • Spontaneous vaginal birth
    • aRR 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.32)
  • Maternal death or serious morbidity
    • aRR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.27 to 3.21)
  • Neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity
    • aRR 0.40 (95% CI, 0.12 to 1.33)

Membrane Sweeping vs IV Oxytocin +/- Amniotomy (1 study)

There may be little to no difference between groups for (low certainty evidence)

  • Spontaneous onset of labor
    • aRR 1.32 (95% CI, 88 to 1.96)
  • Induction
    • aRR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.05 to 5.42)
  • Cesarean
    • aRR 0.69 (95% CI, 0.12 to 3.85)

Membrane Sweeping vs Vaginal/Oral Misoprostol (2 studies)

There may be little to no difference between groups for (low certainty evidence)

  • Cesarean
    • RR 0.82 (95% CI, 0.31 to 2.17)

Once Weekly Membrane Sweep vs Twice Weekly Membrane Sweep vs Sham (1 study)

There may be little to no difference between groups for

  • Induction
    • RR 1.19 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.85)
  • Cesarean
    • RR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.46)
  • Spontaneous vaginal birth
    • RR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.17)
  • Maternal death or serious morbidity
    • RR 0.78 (95% CI, 0.30 to 2.02)
  • Neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity
    • RR 2.00 (95% CI, 0.18 to 21.76)

CONCLUSION:

  • Membrane sweeping may reduce induction of labor and be effective at achieving spontaneous labor onset in patients being managed expectantly
  • No significant differences were identified between membrane sweeping and vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins
  • Data was limited for other ripening options, but no differences were identified

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour

Now You Can Get ObG Clinical Research Summaries Direct to Your Phone, with ObGFirst

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All #Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

How Effective is Membrane Sweeping When Inducing Labor?
Cochrane Review 2017: Outpatient Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction
Induction vs Expectant Management At and Beyond Term – the Cochrane Review

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

ObG Library

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Fertility
  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Log In to ObG First

Please log in to access OBGFirst and the 2T Ultrasound Atlas

Password Trouble?

Sign Up for ObGFirst

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!

ObG First Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site