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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0324172.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324172. eCollection 2025.

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

Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Salila Sameera Bandara Madugalle  1 , Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandana Sirimewan Jayasundara  2 , Indu Asanka Jayawardane  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Salila Sameera Bandara Madugalle et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Any 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.

Methods: We 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).

Results: The 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. CONSORT flowchart. (Membrane Sweep – MS, Cervical Massage – CM, Control -C).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Survival plot for proportion of subjects without spontaneous labour - primiparous women.
This figure demonstrates changes of the cumulative percentage of primiparous women who remain without going into spontaneous labour plotted against the time from initial intervention.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Survival plot for proportion of subjects without spontaneous labour - Multiparous women.
This figure demonstrates changes of the cumulative percentage of multiparous women who remain without going into spontaneous labour plotted against the time from initial intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Martin J, Hamilton B, Ventura S, Osterman M, Kirmeyer S, Mathews T, et al.. Births: final data for 2009. National vital statistics reports. 2011. - PubMed
    1. Calder AA, Loughney AD, Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG. 2008;115(10):1279–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01829.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Senanayake H, Mariani I, Valente EP, Piccoli M, Armocida B, Businelli C, et al.. Outcomes of induction versus spontaneous onset of labour at 40 and 41 GW: findings from a prospective database, Sri Lanka. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):518. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04800-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Frye DK, Meyers JA. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(2):156.e1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.068 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1511–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.001 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources