Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Twice-Weekly Versus Once-Weekly Membrane Sweeping in the Prevention of Post-Term Pregnancy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Pregnancy: Review
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 11 August 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Membrane sweeping is considered a simple and effective method for initiating spontaneous onset of labor. Despite the widely accepted membrane sweeping use to prevent post-term birth, the optimal frequency has not been estimated. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of twice-weekly versus once-weekly membrane sweeping in post-term pregnancy prevention. Four different databases were searched for available clinical trials from inception to October 2022. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared twice-weekly membrane sweeping in intervention group versus once-weekly membrane sweeping in control group among pregnant women with singleton pregnancy at ≥ 39 gestational weeks. Our primary outcomes were the rate of spontaneous onset of labor and the requirement for formal methods of labor induction. Our secondary outcomes were sweeping to delivery interval in days, gestational age at delivery in weeks, Bishop score at admission, chorioamnionitis, and premature rupture of membranes. Three RCTs (596 patients) were included. Twice-weekly membrane sweeping was associated with significant increase in the rate of spontaneous onset of labor and significant decline in labor induction rate in comparison with once-weekly group. Duration from sweeping to delivery was significantly shorter among the twice-weekly group (p<0.001). Furthermore, gestational age at delivery was significantly earlier in the twice-weekly group. A significantly higher Bishop score at admission was observed in the twice-weekly group (p=0.02). There were no significant differences across both groups in chorioamnionitis and premature rupture of membranes. In conclusion, twice-weekly membrane sweeping is more effective in preventing post-maturity pregnancy than once-weekly sweeping without added adverse events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data analyzed are included in this article.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Change history

References

  1. Galal M, Symonds I, Murray H, et al. Postterm pregnancy. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2012;4:175–87.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Deng K, Huang Y, Wang Y, et al. Prevalence of postterm births and associated maternal risk factors in China: data from over 6 million births at health facilities between 2012 and 2016. Sci Rep. 2019;9:273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kortekaas JC, Kazemier BM, Ravelli ACJ, et al. Recurrence rate and outcome of postterm pregnancy, a national cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;193:70–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Morken N-H, Melve KK, Skjaerven R. Recurrence of prolonged and post-term gestational age across generations: maternal and paternal contribution. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118:1630–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Oberg AS, Frisell T, Svensson AC, Iliadou AN. Maternal and fetal genetic contributions to postterm birth: familial clustering in a population-based sample of 475,429 Swedish births. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177:531–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Ven AJ, van Os MA, Kleinrouweler CE, et al. Midpregnancy cervical length in nulliparous women and its association with postterm delivery and intrapartum cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33:40–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olesen AW, Westergaard JG, Olsen J. Perinatal and maternal complications related to postterm delivery: a national register-based study, 1978-1993. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:222–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caughey AB, Stotland NE, Washington AE, Escobar GJ. Maternal and obstetric complications of pregnancy are associated with increasing gestational age at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:155.e1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Usher RH, Boyd ME, McLean FH, Kramer MS. Assessment of fetal risk in postdate pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158:259–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu J, Song G, Meng T, Zhao G. Membrane sweeping added to formal induction method to increase the spontaneous vaginal delivery: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297:623–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Winer N. Different methods for the induction of labour in postterm pregnancy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011;40:796–811.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thangarajah F, Scheufen P, Kirn V, Mallmann P. Induction of labour in late and postterm pregnancies and its impact on maternal and neonatal outcome. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016;76:793–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Krause E, Malorgio S, Kuhn A, et al. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction: a nation-wide survey in Switzerland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159:324–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Antonazzo P, Laoreti A, Personeni C, et al. Vaginal dinoprostone versus intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in patients not responsive to a first dose of dinoprostone: a randomized prospective study. Reprod Sci. 2016;23:779–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2016;20:1–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yildirim G, Güngördük K, Karadağ OI, et al. Membrane sweeping to induce labor in low-risk patients at term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2010;23:681–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Andersen BB, Knudsen B, Lyndrup J, et al. Acupuncture and/or sweeping of the fetal membranes before induction of labor: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Perinat Med. 2013;41:555–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Miranda E, van der Bom JG, Bonsel GJ, et al. Membrane sweeping and prevention of post-term pregnancy in low-risk pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:402–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zamzami TY, Senani NSA. The efficacy of membrane sweeping at term and effect on the duration of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2014;3:30–4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jeewantha RD, Jayathilake WMBG, Talagala IA, Gunawardane K. The effectiveness of twice versus once-only membrane sweeping among uncomplicated primi gravidae at 40 weeks of gestation—a randomized controlled trial. Sri Lanka J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;40:78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Putnam K, Magann EF, et al. Randomized clinical trial evaluating the frequency of membrane sweeping with an unfavorable cervix at 39 weeks. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:287–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.

  24. Julian T, Higgins AP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta­analysis detected by a simple , graphical test. BMJ. 2015;14:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, Olkin I. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med Stat Med. 2003;22:2113–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Salau JO, Onile TG, Musa AO, et al. Effectiveness and safety of membrane sweeping in the prevention of post-term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;0:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ugwu EO, Obi SN, Iferikigwe ES, et al. Membrane stripping to prevent post-term pregnancy in Enugu, Nigeria: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289:29–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Boulvain M, Stan CM, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;2005:CD000451.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Nevils BG, et al. Management of pregnancies beyond forty-one weeks’ gestation with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, McNamara MF, et al. Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. J Perinatol Off J Calif Perinat Assoc. 1999;19:88–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Saeed Baradwan

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia

    Majed Saeed Alshahrani

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

    Khalid Khadawardi

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Jeddah University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Ahmed Ghazi

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternity and Children Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

    Ehab Badghish

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ibrahim Ramadan Alsawy, Alrefaai Abdelfattah Marai, Abdelrahman Ragab Rashed, Tamer Salah Elsayed & Elsayed Mohammed Ibrahim

  7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, New Damietta, Egypt

    Mahmoud A. Hegazy

  8. Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim

  9. Present address: 395 Portsaid street, Bab el-Kalq, Cairo, (Postal code: 11638), Egypt

    Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim

  10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Suzan Elsharkawy

Authors
  1. Saeed Baradwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majed Saeed Alshahrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khalid Khadawardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed Ghazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ehab Badghish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ibrahim Ramadan Alsawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mahmoud A. Hegazy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alrefaai Abdelfattah Marai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Abdelrahman Ragab Rashed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tamer Salah Elsayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Elsayed Mohammed Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Suzan Elsharkawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baradwan, S., Alshahrani, M.S., Khadawardi, K. et al. Twice-Weekly Versus Once-Weekly Membrane Sweeping in the Prevention of Post-Term Pregnancy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Reprod. Sci. 31, 56–65 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01298-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01298-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation