Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term

Appendices

Appendix 1. Methods used to assess trials included in the initial version of this review

Kelly 2003
The trials included in the primary reviews were extracted from an initial set of trials covering all interventions used in induction of labour (see above for details of search strategy). The data extraction process was conducted centrally. This was co‐ordinated from the Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit (CESU) at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, UK, in co‐operation with The Pregnancy and Childbirth Group of The Cochrane Collaboration. This process allowed the data extraction process to be standardised across all the reviews.

The trials were initially reviewed on eligibility criteria, using a standardised form and the basic selection criteria specified above. Following this, data were extracted to a standardised data extraction form which was piloted for consistency and completeness. The pilot process involved the researchers at the CESU and previous reviewers in the area of induction of labour.

Information was extracted regarding the methodological quality of trials on a number of levels. This process was completed without consideration of trial results. Assessment of selection bias examined the process involved in the generation of the random sequence and the method of allocation concealment separately. These were then judged as adequate or inadequate using the criteria described in Table 1 for the purpose of the reviews.

Open in table viewer
1. Methodological quality of trials

Methodological item

Adequate

Inadequate

Generation of random sequence

Computer‐generated sequence, random number tables, lot drawing, coin tossing, shuffling cards, throwing dice.

Case number, date of birth, date of admission, alternation.

Concealment of allocation

Central randomisation, coded drug boxes, sequentially sealed opaque envelopes.

Open allocation sequence, any procedure based on inadequate generation.

Performance bias was examined with regards to whom was blinded in the trials, i.e. patient, caregiver, outcome assessor or analyst. In many trials the caregiver, assessor and analyst were the same party. Details of the feasibility and appropriateness of blinding at all levels was sought.

Predefined subgroup analyses are: previous caesarean section or not; nulliparity or multiparity; membranes intact or ruptured, and cervix unfavourable, favourable or undefined. Only those outcomes with data appear in the analysis tables.

Individual outcome data were included in the analysis if they meet the prestated criteria in Types of outcome measures. Included trial data were processed as described in the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook (Clarke 2002). Data extracted from the trials were analysed on an intention to treat basis (when this was not done in the original report, re‐analysis is performed if possible). Where data were missing, clarification was sought from the original authors. If the attrition was such that it might significantly affect the results, these data were excluded from the analysis. This decision rested with the reviewers of primary reviews and is clearly documented. If missing data become available, they will be included in the analyses.

Data were extracted from all eligible trials to examine how issues of quality influence effect size in a sensitivity analysis. In trials where reporting was poor, methodological issues were reported as unclear or clarification sought.

Due to the large number of trials, double data extraction was not feasible and agreement between the three data extractors was therefore assessed on a random sample of trials.

Once the data had been extracted, they were distributed to individual reviewers for entry onto the Review Manager computer software (RevMan 2003), checked for accuracy, and analysed as above using the RevMan software. For dichotomous data, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and in the absence of heterogeneity, results were pooled using a fixed‐effect model.

The predefined criteria for sensitivity analysis included all aspects of quality assessment as mentioned above, including aspects of selection, performance and attrition bias.

Primary analysis was limited to the prespecified outcomes and subgroup analyses. In the event of differences in unspecified outcomes or subgroups being found, these were analysed post hoc, but clearly identified as such to avoid drawing unjustified conclusions.

Appendix 2. Methods used to assess trials included in previous version of this review

Kelly 2009
The following methods were used to assess: Al Malt 1995; Al‐Sebai 1993; Buchanan 1984; Campbell 1984; Cardozo 1986; Chaterjee 1990; Chua 1995; Chung 1992; Curet 1989; Doany 1997; Dommisse 1980; Duhl 1997; Dunston‐Boone 1991; Egarter 1989; El‐Mardi 1991; El Shawarby 2006; Glanville 2002; Graves 1985; Green 1998; Greer 1990; Hage 1993; Hannah 1996; Hayashi 1983; Kalkat 2008; Liggins 1979; MacKenzie 1979; MacKenzie 1981; MacKenzie 1997a; MacLennan 1980; Mahmood 1989; Mahmood 1992; Mahmood 1995; McCaul 1997; McLaren 1987; Miller 1991; Mukhopadhyay 2002; Murphy 1980; Murray 1995; Neilson 1983; Newman 1997; Nuutila 1996; O'Brien 1995; Ohel 1996; Payne 1993; Perryman 1992; Prasad 1989; Prins 1983; Rabl 2002; Rath 1999; Rayburn 1988; Rayburn 1992; Roach 1997; Sawai 1991; Sawai 1994; Shoaib 1994; Smith 1990; Smith 1994; Stampe Sorensen 1992; Thiery 1984; Tomlinson 2001; Ulmsten 1985; Witter 1992; Witter 1996.

In 2008, the methods and software for carrying out reviews were updated, as a result of which new reviews and updates, where appropriate, will use these new methods (Higgins 2008; RevMan 2008), which will be described in the Methods section of all the individual new and updated reviews.For this update, we used the following methods when assessing the trials identified by the updated search.

Assessment of methodological quality of included studies

We assessed the validity of each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008). We described methods used for generation of the randomisation sequence for each trial.

(1) Selection bias (randomisation and allocation concealment)

We assigned a quality score for each trial, using the following criteria:

  • adequate concealment of allocation: such as telephone randomisation, consecutively‐numbered, sealed opaque envelopes;

  • unclear whether adequate concealment of allocation: such as list or table used, sealed envelopes, or study does not report any concealment approach;

  • inadequate concealment of allocation: such as open list of random‐number tables, use of case record numbers, dates of birth or days of the week.

(2) Attrition bias (loss of participants, for example, withdrawals, dropouts, protocol deviations)

We assessed completeness to follow up using the following criteria:

  • (A) less than 5% loss of participants;

  • (B) 5% to 9.9% loss of participants;

  • (C) 10% to 19.9% loss of participants;

  • (D) more than 20% loss of participants.

(3) Performance bias (blinding of participants, researchers and outcome assessment)

We assessed blinding using the following criteria:

  1. blinding of participants (yes/no/unclear);

  2. blinding of caregiver (yes/no/unclear);

  3. blinding of outcome assessment (yes/no/unclear).

Measures of treatment effect

We carried out statistical analysis using the Review Manager software (RevMan 2008). We used fixed‐effect meta‐analysis for combining data in the absence of significant heterogeneity if trials were sufficiently similar. If heterogeneity was found, we explored this by sensitivity analysis, followed by random‐effects if required.

Dichotomous data

For dichotomous data, we presented results as summary risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

Continuous data

For continuous data, we used the mean difference if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference to combine trials that measure the same outcome, but use different methods. Where there was evidence of skewness, this has been reported.

Dealing with missing data

We analysed data on all participants with available data in the group to which they were allocated, regardless of whether or not they received the allocated intervention. If, in the original reports, participants were not analysed in the group to which they were randomised and there is sufficient information in the trial report, we attempted to restore them to the correct group.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We applied tests of heterogeneity between trials, if appropriate, using the I² statistic. If we identified high levels of heterogeneity among the trials (exceeding 50%), we explored it by prespecified subgroup analysis and performed sensitivity analysis. We used a random‐effects meta‐analysis as an overall summary if this was considered appropriate.

Subgroup analyses

We conducted planned subgroup analyses as performed for the other reviews in this series (seeData collection and analysis). When assessing differences between subgroups, e.g. within the comparison of vaginal PGE2 versus placebo, we explored this using an inverse variance method of meta‐ analysis and presenting the statistics for subgroup differences using chi² and I² statistics.

Sensitivity analyses

We carried out sensitivity analysis to explore the effect of trial quality assessed by concealment of allocation, by excluding studies with clearly inadequate allocation of concealment.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 (1.1) PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women), outcome: 1.13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 (1.1) PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women), outcome: 1.13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 17 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 17 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 18 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 18 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 19 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 19 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 20 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 20 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 21 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 21 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 22 Serious maternal complication.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 22 Serious maternal complication.

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 23 Woman not satisfied.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women), Outcome 23 Woman not satisfied.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 17 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 17 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 18 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 18 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 19 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 19 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 20 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2 (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae), Outcome 20 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 5 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 5 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 6 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 6 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 9 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 9 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 10 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 10 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 11 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 11 Perinatal death.

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 12 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 12 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 13 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 13 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 14 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 14 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 15 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae), Outcome 15 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 10 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.10

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 10 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 11 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.11

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 11 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.12

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 13 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.13

Comparison 4 (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes), Outcome 13 Perinatal death.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 4 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 4 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 7 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 7 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 10 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 10 Perinatal death.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 11 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.11

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 11 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 12 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.12

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 12 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 13 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.13

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 13 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 14 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.14

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 14 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 15 Woman not satisfied.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.15

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 15 Woman not satisfied.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 16 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.16

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 16 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 17 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.17

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 17 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 18 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.18

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 18 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 19 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.19

Comparison 5 (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes), Outcome 19 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.11

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.12

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 12 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.13

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.14

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.15

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 15 Perinatal death.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.16

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 16 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 17 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.17

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 17 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 18 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.18

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 18 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 19 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.19

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 19 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 20 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.20

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 20 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 21 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.21

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 21 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 22 Serious maternal complication.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.22

Comparison 6 (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 22 Serious maternal complication.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 6 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 6 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 7 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 7 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 8 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 8 Perinatal death.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Instrumental Vaginal Delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Instrumental Vaginal Delivery.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.6

Comparison 10 (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.5

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.6

Comparison 11 (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.4

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.5

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.6

Comparison 13 (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.6

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.7

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.8

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 9 Meconium Stained Liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.9

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 9 Meconium Stained Liquor.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.10

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 11 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.11

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 11 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Admission.

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.12

Comparison 14 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.4

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.5

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.6

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.7

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.8

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.9

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.10

Comparison 15 (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 16 (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 16 (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.2

Comparison 16 (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.1

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.2

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.3

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.4

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.5

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.6

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.7

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.8

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.9

Comparison 17 (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.1

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.2

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.3

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.4

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.5

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.6

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.7

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.8

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.9

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.10

Comparison 18 (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.1

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.2

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.3

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.4

Comparison 19 (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.1

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.2

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.3

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.4

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 5 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.5

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 5 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 6 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.6

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 6 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.7

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.8

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 9 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.9

Comparison 20 (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women), Outcome 9 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.1

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.2

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.3

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.4

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.5

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.6

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.7

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.8

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.9

Comparison 21 (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.1

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.2

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.3

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.4

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.5

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.6

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 7 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.7

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 7 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 8 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.8

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 8 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 9 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.9

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 9 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.10

Comparison 22 (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 23 (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.1

Comparison 23 (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 23 (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.2

Comparison 23 (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 24 (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 24.1

Comparison 24 (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 24 (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 24.2

Comparison 24 (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.1

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.2

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.3

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.4

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.5

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.6

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.7

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.8

Comparison 25 (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.1

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.2

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.3

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.4

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.5

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 ‐24 hours (BS < 3).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.6

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 ‐24 hours (BS < 3).

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.7

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.8

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.9

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.10

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.11

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.12

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 12 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.13

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 14 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.14

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 14 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 15 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.15

Comparison 26 (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women), Outcome 15 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.1

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.2

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.3

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.4

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.5

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.6

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.7

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.8

Comparison 27 (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.1

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.2

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.3

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.4

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.5

Comparison 28 (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.1

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.2

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.3

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Caesarean section.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.4

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.5

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Serious maternal morbidity or death.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.6

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.7

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.8

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.9

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Uterine rupture.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.10

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.11

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 11 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.12

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 13 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.13

Comparison 29 (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix), Outcome 13 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.1

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.2

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 3 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.3

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 3 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs .
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.4

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs .

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.5

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 5 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.6

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.7

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 7 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.8

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 8 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 9 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.9

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 9 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.10

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 11 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.11

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 11 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 12 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.12

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 12 Perinatal death.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 13 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.13

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 13 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 14 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.14

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 14 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 15 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.15

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 15 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 16 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.16

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 16 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 17 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.17

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 17 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 18 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.18

Comparison 30 (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women), Outcome 18 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.1

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.2

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs .
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.3

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs .

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.4

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 4 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.5

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.6

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 6 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 7 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.7

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 7 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.8

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.9

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 10 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.10

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 10 Perinatal death.

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 11 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.11

Comparison 31 (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae), Outcome 11 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.1

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.2

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.3

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.4

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 4 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.5

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 5 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 6 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.6

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 6 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.7

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.8

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 9 Perinatal death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.9

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 9 Perinatal death.

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.10

Comparison 32 (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae), Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.1

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.2

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.3

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 3 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Instrumental vaginal delivery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.4

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 4 Instrumental vaginal delivery.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.5

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 5 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.6

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 6 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.7

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.8

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 8 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.9

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 9 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 10 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.10

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 10 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 11 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.11

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 11 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 12 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.12

Comparison 33 (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes), Outcome 12 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.1

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.2

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.3

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 3 Oxytocin augmentation.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.4

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.5

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Maternal side‐effects (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.6

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 6 Maternal side‐effects (all).

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Nausea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.7

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 7 Nausea (maternal).

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Vomitting (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.8

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 8 Vomitting (maternal).

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Diarrhoea (maternal).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.9

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 9 Diarrhoea (maternal).

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Other maternal side‐effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.10

Comparison 34 (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix), Outcome 10 Other maternal side‐effects.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.1

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.2

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.3

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.4

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.5

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 5 Epidural analgesia.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 6 Meconium‐stained liquor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.6

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 6 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.7

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.8

Comparison 35 PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening), Outcome 8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. PGE2 compared with placebo or no treatment for induction of labour at term (all women)

PGE2 compared with placebo or no treatment for induction of labour at term (all women)

Patient or population: patients with induction of labour at term
Settings: Mainly inpatients
Intervention: PGE2 (all regimens)
Comparison: placebo or no treatment (all women)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo or no treatment (all women)

PGE2 (all regimens)

Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours

Study population

RR 0.32
(0.02 to 4.83)

384
(2 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

Probable reduction in time to delivery using PGE2. Useable data only available in 2 of 15 studies reporting time as an outcome. 39 studies in this comparison.

989 per 1000

317 per 1000
(20 to 1000)

Moderate

950 per 1000

304 per 1000
(19 to 1000)

Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes

Study population

RR 3.16
(1.67 to 5.98)

1359
(15 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

The risk of bias is "unclear" for most quality domain of the 15 RCT's and this may be a serious limitation.

10 per 1000

33 per 1000
(18 to 63)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.81 to 1.02)

6599
(36 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

The risk of bias is unclear for most of the studies, but the largest study with a quarter of the participants) has a low risk of bias.

148 per 1000

134 per 1000
(120 to 151)

Moderate

166 per 1000

151 per 1000
(134 to 169)

Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death

Study population

RR 0.46
(0.09 to 2.31)

3638
(9 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Neonatal morbidity or mortality is rare, several studies have no events. Underpowered to detect a difference even if one exists.

2 per 1000

1 per 1000
(0 to 4)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Serious maternal morbidity or death

Study population

RR 2.23
(0.34 to 14.76)

530
(3 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

A very rare outcome, so underpowered to detect a difference if one exists.

4 per 1000

9 per 1000
(1 to 57)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. PGE2 compared with placebo or no treatment for induction of labour at term (all women)
Summary of findings 2. (4.1) PGE2 gel compared with PGE2 tablet (all women) for induction of labour at term

(4.1) PGE2 gel compared with PGE2 tablet (all women) for induction of labour at term

Patient or population: patients with induction of labour at term
Settings: Mainly inpatients
Intervention: (4.1) PGE2 gel
Comparison: PGE2 tablet (all women)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

PGE2 tablet (all women)

(4.1) PGE2 gel

Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours

Study population

RR 1.03
(0.84 to 1.26)

566
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

Most quality domains unclear or low risk but loss to follow up and reporting bias high in 1 trial.

369 per 1000

380 per 1000
(310 to 464)

Moderate

528 per 1000

544 per 1000
(444 to 665)

Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes

Study population

RR 2
(0.18 to 21.71)

200
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

Only 1 small trial with an unclear risk of bias reports this outcome.

10 per 1000

20 per 1000
(2 to 217)

Moderate

10 per 1000

20 per 1000
(2 to 217)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.72 to 1.17)

1046
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

The risk of bias is unclear for most studies, but the largest study has a low risk of bias.

198 per 1000

180 per 1000
(142 to 231)

Moderate

201 per 1000

183 per 1000
(145 to 235)

Serious maternal morbidity or death

Study population

RR 0.33
(0.01 to 8.09)

200
(1 study)

See comment

Study far too small to detect a difference.

10 per 1000

3 per 1000
(0 to 81)

Moderate

10 per 1000

3 per 1000
(0 to 81)

Instrumental vaginal delivery

Study population

RR 0.77
(0.58 to 1.02)

565
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

The largest study has a high risk of bias. This is a secondary outcome in this review.

287 per 1000

221 per 1000
(167 to 293)

Moderate

241 per 1000

186 per 1000
(140 to 246)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. (4.1) PGE2 gel compared with PGE2 tablet (all women) for induction of labour at term
Summary of findings 3. (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) compared with all PGE2 delivery systems (all women) for induction of labour at term

(7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) compared with all PGE2 delivery systems (all women) for induction of labour at term

Patient or population: patients with induction of labour at term
Settings: Mainly inpatients
Intervention: (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release)
Comparison: all PGE2 delivery systems (all women)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

All PGE2 delivery systems (all women)

(7.1) PGE2 (controlled release)

Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours

Study population

RR 1.15
(0.92 to 1.45)

450
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

Although all published after 2002, the risk of bias for most quality domains unclear.

373 per 1000

429 per 1000
(343 to 541)

Moderate

333 per 1000

383 per 1000
(306 to 483)

Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes

Study population

RR 2.15
(0.89 to 5.21)

643
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

4 of the studies are recent but risk of bias unclear.

22 per 1000

47 per 1000
(20 to 115)

Moderate

18 per 1000

39 per 1000
(16 to 94)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 1.02
(0.82 to 1.26)

1262
(11 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

Risk of bias unclear, recent studies poorly reported.

201 per 1000

205 per 1000
(165 to 254)

Moderate

177 per 1000

181 per 1000
(145 to 223)

Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death

Study population

RR 0.31
(0.01 to 7.62)

320
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Underpowered to detect effect even if exists.

6 per 1000

2 per 1000
(0 to 49)

Moderate

5 per 1000

2 per 1000
(0 to 38)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) compared with all PGE2 delivery systems (all women) for induction of labour at term
Table 1. Methodological quality of trials

Methodological item

Adequate

Inadequate

Generation of random sequence

Computer‐generated sequence, random number tables, lot drawing, coin tossing, shuffling cards, throwing dice.

Case number, date of birth, date of admission, alternation.

Concealment of allocation

Central randomisation, coded drug boxes, sequentially sealed opaque envelopes.

Open allocation sequence, any procedure based on inadequate generation.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Methodological quality of trials
Comparison 1. (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

2

384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.02, 4.83]

1.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.67, 1.15]

1.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.08, 0.18]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

15

1359

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.16 [1.67, 5.98]

2.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

7

515

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.46, 4.15]

2.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

3

208

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.34 [0.27, 106.70]

2.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

5

636

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.53 [1.92, 10.65]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

36

6599

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.81, 1.02]

3.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

16

1405

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.83, 1.24]

3.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

15

4523

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.73, 1.02]

3.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

5

671

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.65, 1.12]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

9

3638

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.09, 2.31]

4.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

2

85

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

5

3269

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.09, 2.31]

4.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

2

284

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

3

530

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.23 [0.34, 14.76]

5.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo

2

461

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.23 [0.34, 14.76]

5.2 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

6

567

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.27, 0.65]

6.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

3

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.39, 0.73]

6.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

2

235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.07, 1.08]

6.3 1.6.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.05, 0.45]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

13

1421

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.63, 1.05]

7.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

7

545

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.59, 1.47]

7.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

5

795

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.63, 1.01]

7.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

81

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.20, 0.64]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

13

3636

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.48 [1.17, 5.26]

8.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

6

443

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.33, 4.84]

8.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

5

2953

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.34 [0.78, 7.03]

8.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

2

240

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.85 [1.05, 58.82]

9 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

2

2579

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

9.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

9.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

2520

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

7

3555

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.85, 1.60]

10.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

2

434

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.41, 1.55]

10.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

4

3040

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.41 [0.81, 2.44]

10.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

81

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.83, 1.68]

11 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

13

4219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.82, 1.10]

11.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

6

721

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.55, 1.28]

11.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

5

3348

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.83, 1.13]

11.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

2

150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.55, 1.86]

12 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

12

4245

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.68, 0.98]

12.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

5

704

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.65, 1.40]

12.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

7

3541

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.64, 0.97]

13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

16

4481

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.86, 1.92]

13.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

9

1046

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.24, 1.30]

13.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

6

3220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.34 [0.80, 2.27]

13.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.21 [1.41, 27.34]

14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

12

4022

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.78, 1.14]

14.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

4

681

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.70, 2.15]

14.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

7

3272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.73, 1.10]

14.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.27 [0.36, 29.93]

15 Perinatal death Show forest plot

7

3648

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.14, 2.22]

15.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

2

431

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.85]

15.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

4

3148

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.09, 2.31]

15.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

12

6780

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.80, 1.67]

16.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

6

577

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.95 [1.02, 3.74]

16.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

5

5558

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.53, 1.34]

16.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

645

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

84

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

84

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

3

2794

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.39, 3.39]

18.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.15, 6.41]

18.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

2520

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.34, 4.65]

18.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

3

2819

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.01 [0.36, 135.59]

19.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

2

2604

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.01 [0.36, 135.59]

19.2 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

7

871

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.62, 1.51]

20.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

4

356

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.78 [0.97, 8.02]

20.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

2

300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.42, 1.15]

20.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

9

3537

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.47 [1.04, 2.09]

21.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

4

282

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.33, 3.97]

21.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

4

3040

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.46 [1.01, 2.11]

21.3 PGE2 (sustained release) vs placebo/no treatment

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.64 [0.27, 116.05]

22 Serious maternal complication Show forest plot

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

22.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

23 Woman not satisfied Show forest plot

2

2922

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.24, 2.40]

23.1 PGE2 (once only) vs placebo/no treatment

1

402

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.83, 2.35]

23.2 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

2520

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.33, 0.58]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. (1.1) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (all women)
Comparison 2. (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

2

226

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.06, 2.80]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

3

217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 68.57]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

10

2486

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.77, 1.12]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

3

1796

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.22]

5 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

36

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.03, 0.47]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

407

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.47, 0.74]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

3

1701

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.02, 8.10]

9 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

1

1507

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

4

1959

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.64, 2.73]

11 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

4

1815

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.83, 1.14]

12 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

2

420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.29, 1.13]

13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

3

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.17, 3.27]

14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

3

444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.54, 2.09]

15 Perinatal death Show forest plot

3

1776

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.22]

16 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

3

1882

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.63, 1.71]

17 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

1507

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.68 [0.40, 7.00]

18 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

1507

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.03 [0.24, 104.66]

19 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

2

375

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.50, 1.50]

20 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

3

1927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.51 [0.97, 2.34]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. (1.2) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (primiparae)
Comparison 3. (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

158

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [0.02, 0.12]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

5

1298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.48, 1.42]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

2

1113

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.12]

5 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.88, 1.24]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.18, 0.97]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.94 [0.61, 197.24]

9 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.77, 1.95]

10 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.15, 6.82]

11 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.12]

12 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

2026

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.06, 15.87]

13 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.12]

14 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.98 [0.12, 73.04]

15 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

1013

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.59, 2.52]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. (1.3) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (multiparae)
Comparison 4. (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.08, 0.18]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

5

425

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.16 [0.57, 8.21]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

6

816

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.82, 1.57]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.45]

5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

54

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.24, 0.68]

6 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

2

395

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.83, 1.36]

7 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

5

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.76 [1.32, 34.54]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.28, 5.38]

9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

161

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.14, 2.05]

10 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.01, 4.28]

11 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

3

212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.68 [0.66, 4.31]

12 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

81

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.45]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. (1.4) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with intact membranes)
Comparison 5. (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

7

3320

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.73, 1.08]

2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

3

2840

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.17]

3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

3

2734

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [0.61, 4.52]

4 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

2

2579

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

3

2940

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.73 [0.73, 4.14]

6 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

2779

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.81, 1.13]

7 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

5

3099

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.75, 1.21]

8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

3

2894

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.47 [0.83, 2.63]

9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

4

2953

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.73, 1.13]

10 Perinatal death Show forest plot

2

2719

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.17]

11 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

4

5533

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.73, 1.83]

12 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

2

2579

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.39, 3.39]

13 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

2520

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.01 [0.36, 135.59]

14 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

5

3099

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.47 [1.02, 2.13]

15 Woman not satisfied Show forest plot

1

2520

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.33, 0.58]

16 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

155

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.84 [0.24, 96.66]

18 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

2

375

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.49, 0.79]

19 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

1

155

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.04, 5.20]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. (1.5) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment ( women with ruptured membranes)
Comparison 6. (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.67, 1.15]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

12

1143

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.47 [2.01, 9.93]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

22

2173

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.75, 1.02]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

4

533

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

2

128

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.84 [0.24, 96.66]

6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

2

172

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.35, 0.79]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

8

813

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.53, 1.10]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

9

777

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [0.99, 7.01]

9 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

10 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

5

633

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.63, 2.43]

11 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

7

643

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.61, 1.27]

12 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

5

697

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.47, 0.89]

13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

11

1194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.59, 1.99]

14 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

7

735

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.51, 1.27]

15 Perinatal death Show forest plot

3

298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

10

1572

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.73, 1.59]

17 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

2

274

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.15, 6.41]

19 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

2

331

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

7

871

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.62, 1.51]

21 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

7

917

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.47, 2.05]

22 Serious maternal complication Show forest plot

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.90 [0.12, 68.50]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. (1.6) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 7. (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

56

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

56

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

401

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.40, 3.18]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

2

401

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.45]

5 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

443

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.66, 1.51]

6 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.08, 0.18]

7 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.28, 5.38]

8 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

345

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.45]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. (1.7) PGE2 vs placebo/no treatment (women with a favourable cervix)
Comparison 8. (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 68.57]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

4

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.31, 1.14]

3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.11, 0.37]

4 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

202

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.32, 1.07]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

4

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.56, 0.97]

6 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

435

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.47, 0.84]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. (2.1) PGF2a vs placebo (all women)
Comparison 9. (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 68.57]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 2.87]

3 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.71, 1.09]

4 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.56, 1.27]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. (2.2) PGF2a vs placebo (primiparae)
Comparison 10. (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours Show forest plot

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.05, 0.47]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 68.57]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

112

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.13, 1.90]

4 Instrumental Vaginal Delivery Show forest plot

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.41, 1.38]

5 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

2

112

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.17, 2.11]

6 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

2

112

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.56, 1.20]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. (2.3) PGF2a vs placebo (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 11. (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

75

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.42]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 14.64]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.47, 2.22]

4 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.33 [1.21, 4.51]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.82, 3.00]

6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

75

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.14]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 11. (3.1) PGF2a vs PGE2 ( All women)
Comparison 12. (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 14.64]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 14.64]

3 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.33 [1.21, 4.51]

4 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.82, 3.00]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 12. (3.2) PGF2a vs PGE2 (primiparae)
Comparison 13. (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

75

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.42]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 14.64]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.47, 2.22]

4 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.33 [1.21, 4.51]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.82, 3.00]

6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

75

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.14]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 13. (3.3) PGF2a vs PGE2 (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 14. (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

3

566

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.84, 1.26]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.18, 21.71]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

6

1046

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.72, 1.17]

4 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.09]

5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

2

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.70, 1.07]

6 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

6

742

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.67, 1.08]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

3

565

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.95, 1.21]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

565

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.58, 1.02]

9 Meconium Stained Liquor Show forest plot

1

165

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.39, 2.13]

10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

4

597

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.35, 3.66]

11 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Admission Show forest plot

1

165

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.05, 5.47]

12 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

3

445

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.71, 1.11]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 14. (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet ( all women)
Comparison 15. (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

2

174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.72, 1.51]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.18, 21.71]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

4

454

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.76, 1.34]

4 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.09]

5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.56, 1.07]

6 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

353

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.34, 1.29]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.85, 1.10]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.61, 1.25]

9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.95]

10 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 15. (4.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (primiparae)
Comparison 16. (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.57, 1.87]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.24, 3.22]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 16. (4.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (multiparae)
Comparison 17. (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

73

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.87, 1.87]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.18, 21.71]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

3

473

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.70, 1.49]

4 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.09]

5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.56, 1.07]

6 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

473

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.78, 1.06]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.89, 1.19]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.59, 1.10]

9 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.13, 4.40]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 17. (4.3) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with intact membranes)
Comparison 18. (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

2

191

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.62, 1.59]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.18, 21.71]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

3

353

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.48, 1.86]

4 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.09]

5 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.56, 1.07]

6 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

4

377

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.85, 1.10]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.61, 1.25]

9 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.95]

10 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 18. (4.4) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 19. (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

2

373

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.79, 1.56]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

328

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.40, 1.41]

3 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

24

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.39, 2.58]

4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

352

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.18, 4.37]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 19. (4.5) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 tablet (women with a favourable cervix)
Comparison 20. (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.03, 0.87]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.38, 1.11]

3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

90

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.05]

4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.13]

5 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

2

460

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.02, 1.70]

6 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

7 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

8 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.97]

9 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.97]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 20. (5.1) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (all women)
Comparison 21. (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.03, 0.87]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.38, 1.11]

3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

90

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.05]

4 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.13]

5 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

2

460

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.02, 1.70]

6 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

7 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

8 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.97]

9 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.97]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 21. (5.2) PGE2 gel vs PGE2 suppository/pessary (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 22. (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

3

491

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.64, 1.99]

2 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

491

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.31, 1.40]

3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

24

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.25, 1.78]

5 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

491

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.72 [1.09, 2.70]

6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

467

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.58, 3.05]

7 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

267

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.57, 2.20]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 22. (6.1) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (all women)
Comparison 23. (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

141

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.57, 2.58]

2 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

141

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.85, 1.88]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 23. (6.2) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (primiparae)
Comparison 24. (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

126

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.23, 2.93]

2 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

126

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.37, 1.16]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 24. (6.3) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (multiparae)
Comparison 25. (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.26, 3.89]

2 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.19, 0.64]

3 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.47, 2.62]

5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.51, 3.04]

6 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 25. (6.4) PGE2 tablet vs PGE2 pessary/suppository (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 26. (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

3

450

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.92, 1.45]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

5

643

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.15 [0.89, 5.21]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

11

1262

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.82, 1.26]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

2

320

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.62]

5 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 ‐24 hours (BS < 3) Show forest plot

2

271

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.46, 0.80]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

7

884

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.69, 1.13]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

8

908

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.59 [0.81, 3.14]

9 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

2

330

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.09]

10 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

3

315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.95, 1.36]

11 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

6

791

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.32, 0.68]

12 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.31, 5.72]

13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

3

370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.12, 72.77]

14 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.25, 102.00]

15 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.02]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 26. (7.1) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (all women)
Comparison 27. (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.77, 2.10]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.44 [0.43, 128.16]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

5

399

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.63, 1.23]

4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours Show forest plot

1

151

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.45, 0.80]

5 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

3

258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.43, 1.29]

6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

2

246

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.83, 1.58]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.23, 2.13]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 27. (7.2) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (primiparae)
Comparison 28. (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.35, 6.15]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

2

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.33, 27.38]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

3

127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.53, 3.23]

4 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.20, 0.86]

5 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

29

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.13, 2.85]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 28. (7.3) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (multiparae)
Comparison 29. (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours Show forest plot

1

130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.85, 2.21]

2 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

3

323

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.67 [0.86, 51.67]

3 Caesarean section Show forest plot

8

873

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.77, 1.28]

4 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.01, 7.62]

5 Serious maternal morbidity or death Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24 hours Show forest plot

1

151

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.45, 0.80]

7 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

5

564

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.54, 1.21]

8 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

5

537

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.81 [0.71, 47.25]

9 Uterine rupture Show forest plot

1

130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

3

286

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.84, 1.63]

11 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

402

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.20, 0.59]

12 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

170

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.31, 5.72]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 29. (7.4) PGE2 (controlled release) vs all PGE2 delivery systems (women with an unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 30. (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.13]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

7

1546

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.78, 1.33]

3 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

1

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs Show forest plot

1

151

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [1.25, 2.21]

5 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

5

1370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.77, 1.20]

6 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.92]

7 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

4

1330

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.74, 1.26]

8 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

3

1179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.70, 1.13]

9 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

1

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.67, 1.10]

10 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

3

1064

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.20, 1.31]

11 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.24, 1.09]

12 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

280

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.13]

14 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

15 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

16 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

2

1155

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.79, 2.09]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 30. (8.1) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women)
Comparison 31. (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

650

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.83, 1.63]

2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12‐24hrs Show forest plot

1

151

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [1.25, 2.21]

4 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

2

650

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.93, 1.18]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

2

650

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.93, 1.22]

6 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.71, 1.18]

7 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.72, 1.27]

8 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.02, 1.27]

9 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.11, 1.03]

10 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

499

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.86, 3.05]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 31. (8.2) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (primiparae)
Comparison 32. (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.19, 2.51]

2 Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.94 [1.35, 2.80]

4 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.77, 1.70]

5 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.98 [1.37, 25.99]

6 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.48, 1.24]

7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.42 [0.34, 5.88]

8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

492

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.33, 3.06]

9 Perinatal death Show forest plot

1

465

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

456

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.44, 2.47]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 32. (8.3) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (multiparae)
Comparison 33. (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

269

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.44, 1.38]

2 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.63, 1.05]

3 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.80, 1.82]

4 Instrumental vaginal delivery Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.38, 1.26]

5 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

200

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.13, 4.40]

6 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.13]

7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.13]

8 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

280

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.13]

9 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

10 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

11 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 33. (8.4) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women with intact membranes)
Comparison 34. (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.02, 1.13]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

4

367

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.69, 1.46]

3 Oxytocin augmentation Show forest plot

2

191

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.73, 1.06]

4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 3.92]

5 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

2

109

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.13]

6 Maternal side‐effects (all) Show forest plot

1

280

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.13]

7 Nausea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

8 Vomitting (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 8.13]

9 Diarrhoea (maternal) Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Other maternal side‐effects Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 34. (8.5) PGE2 low dose vs PGE2 high dose (all women, unfavourable cervix)
Comparison 35. PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.42, 1.18]

2.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

2

300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.42, 1.18]

3 Cervix unfavourable/unchanged after 12 to 24 hours Show forest plot

1

36

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.03, 0.47]

3.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

36

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.03, 0.47]

4 Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR changes Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 71.92]

4.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 71.92]

5 Epidural analgesia Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.62, 1.12]

5.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.62, 1.12]

6 Meconium‐stained liquor Show forest plot

2

300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.28, 0.66]

6.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

2

300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.28, 0.66]

7 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.06]

7.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.01, 4.06]

8 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.02, 1.65]

8.1 PGE2 (repeated doses) vs placebo/no treatment

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.2 [0.02, 1.65]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 35. PGE2 (all regimens) vs placebo/no treatment (all women, outpatient ripening)