Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review

Ellen L. Mozurkewich, Julie L. Chilimigras, Deborah R. Berman, Uma C. Perni, Vivian C. Romero, Valerie King, Kristie L. Keeton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

81 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.Methods: We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.Results: We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.Conclusions: Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number84
JournalBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Volume11
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 27 2011

Fingerprint

Induced Labor
Misoprostol
Dinoprostone
Oxytocin
Prostaglandins
Membranes
Carboprost
16,16-Dimethylprostaglandin E2
Catheters
Laminaria
Castor Oil
Dinoprost
Nipples
Acupuncture
MEDLINE
Libraries
Mothers
Morbidity
Pregnancy
Injections

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Mozurkewich, E. L., Chilimigras, J. L., Berman, D. R., Perni, U. C., Romero, V. C., King, V., & Keeton, K. L. (2011). Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 11, [84]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-84

Methods of induction of labour : A systematic review. / Mozurkewich, Ellen L.; Chilimigras, Julie L.; Berman, Deborah R.; Perni, Uma C.; Romero, Vivian C.; King, Valerie; Keeton, Kristie L.

In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol. 11, 84, 27.10.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mozurkewich, EL, Chilimigras, JL, Berman, DR, Perni, UC, Romero, VC, King, V & Keeton, KL 2011, 'Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review', BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 11, 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-84
Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King V et al. Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2011 Oct 27;11. 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-84
Mozurkewich, Ellen L. ; Chilimigras, Julie L. ; Berman, Deborah R. ; Perni, Uma C. ; Romero, Vivian C. ; King, Valerie ; Keeton, Kristie L. / Methods of induction of labour : A systematic review. In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2011 ; Vol. 11.
@article{2000d62d6c494669847ca9ec06801e5f,
title = "Methods of induction of labour: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.Methods: We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.Results: We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.Conclusions: Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.",
author = "Mozurkewich, {Ellen L.} and Chilimigras, {Julie L.} and Berman, {Deborah R.} and Perni, {Uma C.} and Romero, {Vivian C.} and Valerie King and Keeton, {Kristie L.}",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2393-11-84",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
journal = "BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth",
issn = "1471-2393",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods of induction of labour

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Mozurkewich, Ellen L.

AU - Chilimigras, Julie L.

AU - Berman, Deborah R.

AU - Perni, Uma C.

AU - Romero, Vivian C.

AU - King, Valerie

AU - Keeton, Kristie L.

PY - 2011/10/27

Y1 - 2011/10/27

N2 - Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.Methods: We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.Results: We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.Conclusions: Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.

AB - Background: Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.Methods: We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.Results: We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.Conclusions: Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054891301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80054891301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2393-11-84

DO - 10.1186/1471-2393-11-84

M3 - Article

C2 - 22032440

AN - SCOPUS:80054891301

VL - 11

JO - BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

JF - BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

SN - 1471-2393

M1 - 84

ER -