A randomized prospective comparison of intracervical PGE2 gel (PrepidilTM) versus foley bulb for preinduction cervical ripening

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.   Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (average RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; I² = 45%; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods, may include simplicity of preservation, lower cost and reduction of the side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical methods for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment, prostaglandins (vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), misoprostol) and oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2011) and bibliographies of relevant papers. We updated this search on 16 January 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour. A comparison with amniotomy will be added, should this comparison be made in future trials.Different types of intervention have been considered as mechanical methods: (1) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (2) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space, with or without traction; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluidsin the extra-amniotic spaceIn addition, we made other comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter and laminaria tents) compared with any prostaglandins or with oxytocin; (2) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we have included a further 27 studies. The review includes 71 randomised controlled trials (total of 9722 women), ranging from 39 to 588 women per study. Most studies reported on caesarean section, all other outcomes are based on substantially fewer women. Four additional studies are ongoing.Mechanical methods versus no treatment: one study (48 woman) reported on women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.26). The risk of caesarean section was similar between groups (six studies; 416 women, RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.30). There were no cases of severe neonatal and maternal morbidity.Mechanical methods versus vaginal PGE2 (17 studies;1894 woman): The proportion of women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different (three studies; 586 women RR 1.72; 95% CI 0.90 to 3.27); however, for the subgroup of multiparous women the risk of not achieving delivery within 24 hours was higher (one study; 147 women RR 4.38, 95% CI 1.74 to 10.98), with no increase in caesarean sections (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62-2.29). Compared with intracervical PGE2 (14 studies;1784 women and misoprostol there was no significant difference in the proportion of women not achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours.Mechanical methods reduced the risk of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes when compared with vaginal prostaglandins: vaginal PGE2 (eight studies; 1203 women, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and misoprostol (3% versus 9%) (nine studies; 1615 women, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.54). Risk of caesarean section between mechanical methods and prostaglandins was comparable. Serious neonatal and maternal morbidity were infrequently reported and did not differ between the groups.Mechanical methods compared with induction with oxytocin (reduced the risk of caesarean section (five studies; 398 women, RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90). The likelihood of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not reported. Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was reported in one study (200 participants), and did not differ. There were no reported cases of severe maternal or neonatal morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour using mechanical methods results in similar caesarean section rates as prostaglandins, for a lower risk of hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods do not increase the overall number of women not delivered within 24 hours, however the proportion of multiparous women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was higher when compared with vaginal PGE2. Compared with oxytocin, mechanical methods reduce the risk of caesarean section.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix or to induce labour. Devices which were used include various type of catheters and of laminaria tents, introduced into the cervical canal or into the extra-amniotic space. Mechanical methods were never completely abandoned, but were substituted by pharmacological methods during recent decades. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods, may include simplicity of preservation, lower cost and reduction of the side effects. However, special attention should be paid to contraindications (e.g. low-lying placenta), risk of infection and maternal discomfort when inserting these devices. 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 mechanical methods for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment, prostaglandins (vaginal, intracervical, misoprostol) and oxytocin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant papers. Last searched April 2001.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The criteria for inclusion were the following: (1) clinical trials comparing mechanical methods 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; (2) random allocation to the treatment or control group; (3) adequate or unclear method for allocation concealment; (4) violations of allocated management not sufficient to materially affect conclusions; (5) clinically meaningful outcome measures reported; (6) data available for analysis according to the random allocation; (7) missing data insufficient to materially affect the conclusions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A strategy has been 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. The initial data extraction was done centrally, and incorporated into a series of primary reviews arranged by methods of induction of labour, following a standardised methodology. The data will be extracted from the primary reviews into a series of secondary reviews, arranged by category of woman.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 58 studies were considered; 45 studies have been included and 13 were excluded. Studies generally included women with unfavourable cervix and intact membranes. Comparing mechanical methods with placebo/no treatment, only one study with 48 participants reported on vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours (69% with mechanical methods versus 77% with placebo/no treatment; relative risk (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.26). Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was not reported. The risk of caesarean section, reported in six studies including 416 women, was similar between groups (34%; RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.76-1.30). There were no reported cases of severe neonatal and maternal morbidity. Comparing mechanical methods with vaginal PGE2, only one trial (109 women) reported on vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours (73% versus 42%; relative risk (RR) 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21-2.49). Compared with intracervical PGE2, only one trial (100 women) reported on vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours (68% versus 40%; relative risk (RR) 1.70; 95% CI: 1.15-2.51). Compared with with misoprostol, the effectiveness of mechanical methods was similar (34% versus 30%; relative risk (RR) 1.15; 95% CI: 0.80-1.66). The use of mechanical method reduced the risk of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes when compared with prostaglandins: vaginal PGE2 (0% versus 6%; RR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.53), intracervical PGE2 (0% versus 1%; RR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.04-1.20) and misoprostol (4% versus 9%; RR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.20-0.87). There was no difference in the risk of caesarean section between mechanical methods and prostaglandins. Serious neonatal (three cases) and maternal morbidity (one case) were infrequently reported. When compared with oxytocin, use of mechanical methods reduced the risk of caesarean section (4 trials; 198 women; 17% versus 32%; RR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.33-0.91). The likelihood of vaginal delivery in 24 hours and of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was not reported. There were no reported cases of serious maternal morbidity and severe neonatal morbidity was not reported. These results are similar whatever specific mechanical method was used, except with extra-amniotic infusion. When comparing extra-amniotic infusion with any prostaglandins, women were more likely to not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (57% versus 42%; RR 1.33; 95% CI: 1.02-1.75), the risk of caesarean section was increased (31% versus 22%; RR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.14-1.90), without a reduction of the risk of hyperstimulation.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness, in terms of likelihood of vaginal delivery in 24 hours, of mechanical methods compared with placebo/no treatment or with prostaglandins. The risk of hyperstimulation was reduced when compared with prostaglandins (intracervical, intravaginal or misoprostol). Compared to oxytocin in women with unfavourable cervix, mechanical methods reduce the risk of caesarean section. There is no evidence to support the use of extra-amniotic infusion.