![]() Of the seven studies that reported financial funding, two studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies. Studies compared membrane sweeping with no intervention or sham intervention, and also compared membrane sweeping with vaginal or intracervical prostaglandins, oral misoprostol, oxytocin and repeated membrane sweeping. We included 44 randomised studies that reported findings for 6940 women from a wide range of countries including high-, middle- and low-income countries. We searched for evidence on 25 February 2019. Formal induction of labour involves artificially stimulating the uterus with drugs such as prostaglandins or oxytocin or by breaking the amniotic sack that holds the baby (breaking the waters). It involves the clinician inserting one or two fingers into the lower part of the uterus (the cervix) and using a continuous circular sweeping motion to free the membrane from the lower uterus. Membrane sweeping is a relatively simple, low-cost procedure that seeks to reduce the use of formal induction of labour and it can be performed without the need for hospitalisation. The most common reason for formal induction of labour is post-term pregnancy (pregnancies that continue past 42 weeks' gestation). Most commonly, formal induction of labour is offered to women when continuing with a pregnancy is considered probably more harmful for the mother or baby than the adverse effects of induction. ![]() ![]() The aim of this Cochrane Review is to find out if membrane sweeping is a safe and effective way of inducing labour at or near term and if it is more effective than the formal methods of induction. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |