Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Jan 25;2005(1):CD000451.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub2.

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour

M Boulvain  1 , C Stan, O Irion
Affiliations

Membrane sweeping for induction of labour

M Boulvain et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

  • Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.
    Finucane EM, Murphy DJ, Biesty LM, Gyte GM, Cotter AM, Ryan EM, Boulvain M, Devane D. Finucane EM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 27;2(2):CD000451. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32103497 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Background: Sweeping of the membranes, also named stripping of the membranes, is a relatively simple technique usually performed without admission to hospital. During vaginal examination, the clinician's finger is introduced into the cervical os. Then, the inferior pole of the membranes is detached from the lower uterine segment by a circular movement of the examining finger. This intervention has the potential to initiate labour by increasing local production of prostaglandins and, thus, reduce pregnancy duration or pre-empt formal induction of labour with either oxytocin, prostaglandins or amniotomy. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology.

Objectives: To determine the effects of membrane sweeping for third trimester induction of labour.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (6 July 2004) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

Selection criteria: Clinical trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

Data collection and analysis: A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction.

Main results: Twenty-two trials (2797 women) were included, 20 comparing sweeping of membranes with no treatment, three comparing sweeping with prostaglandins and one comparing sweeping with oxytocin (two studies reported more than one comparison). Risk of caesarean section was similar between groups (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.15). Sweeping of the membranes, performed as a general policy in women at term, was associated with reduced duration of pregnancy and reduced frequency of pregnancy continuing beyond 41 weeks (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74) and 42 weeks (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.50). To avoid one formal induction of labour, sweeping of membranes must be performed in eight women (NNT = 8). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of maternal or neonatal infection. Discomfort during vaginal examination and other adverse effects (bleeding, irregular contractions) were more frequently reported by women allocated to sweeping. Studies comparing sweeping with prostaglandin administration are of limited sample size and do not provide evidence of benefit.

Authors' conclusions: Routine use of sweeping of membranes from 38 weeks of pregnancy onwards does not seem to produce clinically important benefits. When used as a means for induction of labour, the reduction in the use of more formal methods of induction needs to be balanced against women's discomfort and other adverse effects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

One of the authors of this review is also the principal investigator in one of the included studies.

Figures

1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 12 Meconium stained liquor.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 16 Perinatal death.
1.23
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 23 Postpartum haemorrhage.
1.28
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 28 Not in labour or not delivered within 48 hours (not prespecified).
1.29
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 29 Not delivered within one week (not prespecified).
1.30
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 30 Not delivered before 41 weeks (not prespecified).
1.31
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
1.32
1.32. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 32 Delay to delivery (days) (not prespecified).
1.33
1.33. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 33 Discomfort during vaginal examination (not prespecified).
1.34
1.34. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 34 Vaginal bleeding (not prespecified).
1.35
1.35. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 35 Contractions without onset of labour (not prespecified).
1.36
1.36. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
1.37
1.37. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 37 Maternal infection/fever (not prespecified).
1.38
1.38. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
1.39
1.39. Analysis
Comparison 1 (1.1)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, Outcome 39 Neonatal infection (not prespecified).
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
2.14
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
2.16
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 16 Perinatal death.
2.31
2.31. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
2.36
2.36. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
2.37
2.37. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 37 Maternal infection/fever (not prespecified).
2.38
2.38. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
2.39
2.39. Analysis
Comparison 2 (1.2)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 39 Neonatal infection (not prespecified).
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
3.10
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
3.11
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
3.13
3.13. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
3.14
3.14. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
3.16
3.16. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 16 Perinatal death.
3.31
3.31. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
3.36
3.36. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
3.37
3.37. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 37 Maternal infection/fever (not prespecified).
3.38
3.38. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
3.39
3.39. Analysis
Comparison 3 (1.5)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all women, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 39 Neonatal infection (not prespecified).
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death.
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
4.10
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
4.11
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
4.13
4.13. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
4.14
4.14. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
4.16
4.16. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 16 Perinatal death.
4.28
4.28. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 28 Not in labour or not delivered within 48 hours (not prespecified).
4.29
4.29. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 29 Not delivered within one week (not prespecified).
4.30
4.30. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 30 Not delivered before 41 weeks (not prespecified).
4.32
4.32. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 32 Delay to delivery (days) (not prespecified).
4.36
4.36. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
4.38
4.38. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
4.39
4.39. Analysis
Comparison 4 (1.10)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all primiparae, Outcome 39 Neonatal infection (not prespecified).
5.36
5.36. Analysis
Comparison 5 (1.19)Membranes sweeping versus no treatment: all multiparae, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour.
10.3
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
10.7
10.7. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
10.11
10.11. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
10.12
10.12. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 12 Meconium stained liquor.
10.13
10.13. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
10.14
10.14. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
10.23
10.23. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 23 Postpartum haemorrhage.
10.31
10.31. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
10.36
10.36. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
10.38
10.38. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
10.39
10.39. Analysis
Comparison 10 (2.1)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, Outcome 39 Neonatal infection (not prespecified).
11.3
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
11.11
11.11. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
11.13
11.13. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
11.14
11.14. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
11.31
11.31. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
11.36
11.36. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
11.38
11.38. Analysis
Comparison 11 (2.2)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
12.3
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
12.11
12.11. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
12.13
12.13. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
12.14
12.14. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
12.31
12.31. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 31 Not delivered before 42 weeks (not prespecified).
12.36
12.36. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
12.38
12.38. Analysis
Comparison 12 (2.5)Membranes sweeping versus vaginal prostaglandins: all women, intact membranes,unfavourable cervix, Outcome 38 Prelabour rupture of membranes (not prespecified).
20.3
20.3. Analysis
Comparison 20 (4.1)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all women, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
20.36
20.36. Analysis
Comparison 20 (4.1)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all women, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
22.3
22.3. Analysis
Comparison 22 (4.2)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
22.36
22.36. Analysis
Comparison 22 (4.2)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all women, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
23.3
23.3. Analysis
Comparison 23 (4.10)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all primiparae, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
23.36
23.36. Analysis
Comparison 23 (4.10)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: all primiparae, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
24.3
24.3. Analysis
Comparison 24 (4.11)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: primiparae, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
24.36
24.36. Analysis
Comparison 24 (4.11)Membranes sweeping versus oxytocin: primiparae, unfavourable cervix, Outcome 36 'Formal' induction of labour (not prespecified).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Alcoseba‐Lim 1992 {published data only}
    1. Alcoseba‐Lim W, Famador‐Juario H. Stripping of the membranes to induce labor at term. Philippine Journal of Surgical Specialities 1992;47:139‐42.
Allott 1993 {published data only}
    1. Allott HA, Palmer CR. Sweeping the membranes: a valid procedure in stimulating the onset of labour?. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;100:898‐903. - PubMed
Berghella 1994 {published data only}
    1. Berghella V, Mickens R. Stripping of membranes as a safe method to reduce prolonged pregnancies. XIV World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO);1994 Sept 26‐30; Montreal, Canada. 1994:PO 34.16.
    1. Berghella V, Rogers RA, Lescale K. Stripping of membranes as a safe method to reduce prolonged pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1996;87(6):927‐31. - PubMed
Boulvain 1998 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Boulvain M, Fraser W, Marcoux S, Fontaine J, Bazin S, Blouin D. Randomised trial of sweeping the membranes. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1997;76:32.
    1. Boulvain M, Fraser W, Marcoux S, Fontaine JY, Bazin S, Pinault JJ, Blouin D. Does sweeping of the membranes reduce the need for formal induction of labour ? A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105:34‐40. - PubMed
Cammu 1996 {published data only}
    1. Cammu H, Haitsma V. Sweeping of the membranes at 39 weeks in nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105:41‐4. - PubMed
    1. Haitsma V, Cammu H. Is stripping of membranes useful in reducing duration of pregnancy?. Proceedings of 15th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine; 1996 Sept 10‐13; Glasgow, UK. 1996:202.
Crane 1997 {published data only}
    1. Crane J, Bennet K, Windrim R, Kravitz H, Young D. Prospective randomized study of sweeping membranes at term. Proceedings of the SOGC Meeting; 1996 June; Québec, Canada. 1996.
    1. Crane J, Bennet K, Young D, Windrim R, Kravitz H. The effectiveness of sweeping membranes at term: a randomized trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;89:586‐90. - PubMed
Dare 2002 {published data only}
    1. Dare FO, Oboro VO. The role of membrane stripping in prevention of post‐term pregnancy: a randomised clinical trial in Ile‐Ife, Nigeria. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;22(3):283‐6. - PubMed
Doany 1997 {published data only}
    1. Doany W. Outpatient management of postdate pregnancy with intravaginal prostaglandin E2 and membrane stripping. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174:351.
    1. Doany W, McCarty J. Outpatient management of the uncomplicated postdate pregnancy with intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel and membrane stripping. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 1997;6(2):71‐8. - PubMed
El‐Torkey 1992 {published data only}
    1. El‐Torkey M, Grant JM. Sweeping of the membranes is an effective method of induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy: a report of a randomized trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:455‐8. - PubMed
Goldenberg 1996 {published data only}
    1. Goldenberg M, Dulitzky M, Feldman B, Zolti M, Bider D. Stretching of the cervix and stripping of the membranes at term: a randomised controlled study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1996;66(2):129‐32. - PubMed
Gupta 1998 {published data only}
    1. Gupta R, Vasishta K, Sawhney H, Ray P. Safety and efficacy of stripping of membranes at term. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1998;60:115‐21. - PubMed
Magann 1998a {published data only}
    1. Magann EF, McNamara MF, Whitworth NS, Chauhan SP, Thorp RA, Morrison JC. Can we decrease postdatism in women with an unfavourable cervix and a negative fetal fibronectin at term by serial membrane stripping [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1):S96. - PubMed
    1. Magann EF, McNamara MF, Whitworth NS, Chauhan SP, Thorpe RA, Morrison JC. Can we decrease postdatism in women with an unfavorable cervix and a negative fetal fibronectin test result at term by serial membrane sweeping?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;179:890‐4. - PubMed
Magann 1998b {published data only}
    1. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, McNamara MF, Bass JD, Estes CM, Morrison JC. Membrane stripping vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavourable cervix [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1):S30.
    1. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Nevils BG, McNamara MF, Kinsella MJ, Morrison JC. Management of pregnancies beyond fourty‐one weeks' gestation with an unfavourable cervix. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178:1279‐87. - PubMed
Magann 1999 {published data only}
    1. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, McNamara MF, Bass JD, Estes CM, Morrison JC. Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Perinatology 1999;19:88‐91. - PubMed
McColgin 1990a {published data only}
    1. McColgin SW, Patrissi GA, Morrison JC. Stripping membranes at term: is it safe and efficacious?. Proceedings of 9th Annual Meeting of the Society of Perinatal Obstetricians; 1989 Feb 1‐4; New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 1989:100.
    1. McColgin SW, Patrissi GA, Morrison JC. Stripping the fetal membranes at term: is the procedure safe and efficacious?. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1990;35(8):811‐4. - PubMed
McColgin 1990b {published data only}
    1. McColgin SW, Hampton HL, McCaul JF, Howard PR, Andrew ME, Morrison JC. Stripping of membranes at term: can it safely reduce the incidence of post‐term pregnancies?. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1990;76:678‐80. - PubMed
Netta 2002 {published data only}
    1. Netta D, Visintainer P, Bayliss P. Does cervical membrane stripping increase maternal colonization of group B streptococcus?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187(6):S221.
Salamalekis 2000 {published data only}
    1. Salamalekis E, Vitoratos N, Kassanos D, Loghis C, Batalias L, Panayotopoulos N, et al. Sweeping of the membranes versus uterine stimulation by oxytocin in nulliparous women. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2000;49:240‐3. - PubMed
Tannirandorn 1999 {published data only}
    1. Tannirandorn Y, Jumrustanasan T. A comparative study of membrane stripping and nonstripping for induction of labor in uncomplicated term pregnancy. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 1999;82(3):229‐32. - PubMed
Weissberg 1977 {published data only}
    1. Weissberg SM, Spellacy WN. Membrane stripping to induce labour. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1977;19(3):125‐7. - PubMed
Wiriyasirivaj 1996 {published data only}
    1. Wiriyasirivaj B, Vutyavanich T, Ruangsri R. A randomized controlled trial of membrane stripping at term to promote labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1996;87:767‐70. - PubMed
Wong 2002 {published data only}
    1. Wong SF, Hui SK, Choi H, Ho LC. Does sweeping of membranes beyond 40 weeks reduce the need for formal induction of labour?. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2002;109:632‐6. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bergsjo 1989 {published data only}
    1. Bergsjo P, Huang GD, Yu SQ, Gao ZZ, Bakketeig LS. Comparison of induced versus non‐induced labor in post‐term pregnancy. A randomized prospective study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1989;68:683‐7. - PubMed
Foong 2000 {published data only}
    1. Foong L, Vanaja K, Tan G, Chua S. Effect of cervical membrane sweeping on induction of labour. Women's health into the new millennium. Women's Health ‐ into the new millennium. Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Meeting of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 1999 Oct 3‐6; Cape Town, South Africa. 1999:63.
    1. Foong LC, Vanaja K, Tan G, Chua S. Membrane sweeping in conjunction with labor induction. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;96:539‐42. - PubMed
Gemer 2001 {published data only}
    1. Gemer O, Kapustian V, Harari D, Sassoon E, Segal S. Sweeping of membranes vs. prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2001;46:706‐8. - PubMed
McColgin 1993 {published data only}
    1. McColgin SW, Bennet WA, Roach H, Cowan BD, Martin JN, Morrison JC. Parturitional factors associated with membrane stripping. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;169:71‐7. - PubMed
Swann 1958 {published data only}
    1. Swann RD. Induction of labor by stripping membranes. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1958;11:74‐8. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Averill 1999 {published data only}
    1. Averill KA, Scardo JA, Chauhan SP. Weekly membrane stripping to decrease the incidence of postterm pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1999;93(4 Supplement):47S.
de Miranda 2006 {published data only}
    1. Miranda E, Bom JG, Bonsel GJ, Bleker OP, Rosendaal FR. Membrane sweeping and prevention of post‐term pregnancy in low‐risk pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2006;113(4):402‐8. - PubMed
Hill 2006 {published data only}
    1. Hill MJ. Safety study of membrane sweeping in pregnancy (ongoing trial). ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) (accessed 21 March 2006).
Hill 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Garcia D, Chen B, Munroe M, Hoeldtke NJ. The effect of membrane sweeping in uncomplicated pregnancies on prelabor rupture of membranes, a prospective randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;111(4 Suppl):11S. - PubMed
Hill 2008a {published data only}
    1. Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Garcia‐Sur D, Chen B, Munroe M, Hoeldtke NJ. The effect of membrane sweeping on prelabor rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;111(6):1313‐9. - PubMed
Ifnan 2006 {published data only}
    1. Ifnan F, Jameel MB. Ripening of cervix for induction of labour by hydrostatic sweeping of membrane versus foley's catheter ballooning alone. Jcpsp, Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons ‐ Pakistan 2006; Vol. 16, issue 5:347‐50. - PubMed
Imsuwan 1999 {published data only}
    1. Imsuwan Y, Tanapat Y. Reduction of pregnancy with gestational age more than 41 weeks by membrane stripping to induce labor: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;11(4):267.
Kashanian 2006 {published data only}
    1. Kashanian M, Akbarian A, Baradaran H, Samiee MM. Effect of membrane sweeping at term pregnancy on duration of pregnancy and labor induction: a randomized trial. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2006;62(1):41‐4. - PubMed
Kaul 2004 {published data only}
    1. Kaul V, Aggarwal N, Ray P. Membrane stripping versus single dose intracervical prostaglandin gel administration for cervical ripening. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2004;86:388‐9. - PubMed
Tan 2006 {published data only}
    1. Tan PC, Jacob R, Omar SZ. Membrane sweeping at initiation of formal labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006;107(3):569‐77. - PubMed
Yildirim 2008 {published data only}
    1. Yildirim G, Gungorduk K, Idem O, Aslam H, Ceylan Y. Membrane sweeping. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2008;21(Suppl 1):36. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Manidakis 1999 {published data only}
    1. Manidakis G, Sifakis S, Orfanoudaki E, Mikelakis G, Prokopakis P, Magou M, Koumantakis E. Prostaglandin versus stripping of membranes in management of pregnancy beyond 40‐41 weeks. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1999;86:S79‐80.
Shipman 2000 {published data only}
    1. Shipman M. The SNS trial: sweeping vs no sweeping of membranes in uncomplicated post‐date pregnancies. National Research Register http//www.update‐software.com/NRR (accessed 8 March 2000).

Additional references

Clarke 1999
    1. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.0 [updated July 1999]. In: Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 4.0 Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration, 1999.
Curtis 1987
    1. Curtis P, Evans S, Resnick J. Uterine hyperstimulation. The need for standard terminology. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1987;32:91‐5. - PubMed
Hamilton 1810
    1. Thiery M, Baines CJ, Keirse MJNC. cited in: The development of methods for inducing labour. In: Chalmers I, Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC editor(s). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:970.
Hofmeyr 2000
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Alfirevic Z, Kelly T, Kavanagh J, Thomas J, Brocklehurst P, et al. Methods for cervical ripening and labour induction in late pregnancy: generic protocol. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. [Art. No.: CD002074. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002074] - PubMed
Keirse 1983
    1. Keirse M, Thiery M, Parewijck W, Mitchell M. Chronic stimulation of uterine prostaglandin synthesis during cervical ripening before the onset of labor. Prostaglandins 1983;25:671‐82. - PubMed
Melzack 1987
    1. Melzack R. The short‐form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1987;30:191‐7. - PubMed
RevMan 1999 [Computer program]
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 4.0 for Windows. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration, 1999.

References to other published versions of this review

Boulvain 2001
    1. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451] - DOI - PubMed
Keirse 1995
    1. Keirse MJNC. Stripping/sweeping membranes at term for induction of labour. [revised 03 April 1992]. In: Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, Neilson JP, Crowther C (eds.) Pregnancy and Childbirth Module. In: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database [database on disk and CDROM]. The Cochrane Collaborarion; Issue 2, Oxford: Update Software; 1995.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources