Safety Study of Membrane Sweeping in Pregnancy

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. Identifier: NCT00294242
Recruitment Status : Unknown
Verified February 2006 by Tripler Army Medical Center.
Recruitment status was:  Not yet recruiting
First Posted : February 20, 2006
Last Update Posted : February 20, 2006
Information provided by:
Tripler Army Medical Center

No Study Results Posted on for this Study
  Recruitment Status : Unknown
  Primary Completion Date : No date given
  Study Completion Date : No date given
1. Bulware et al. Membrane sweeping for induction of labor. The Cochrane Database for induction of labor 2005, 2 (no page number) 2. Magann et al. Can we decrease postadtism in women with an unfavorable cervix and a negative fetal fibronectin test result at term by serial membrane sweeping? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998, 179(4): 890-894 3. CammuH, Haitsma V. Sweeping membranes at 39 weeks in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Brit J Obstet Gynecol 1998: 105(1): 41-4 4. Boulvain et al. Does sweeping of the membranes reduce the need for formal induction of labour? A randomized controlled trial. Brit J Obstet Gynecol. 1998, 105(1): 34040 5. Allott HA, Palmer CR. Sweeping the membranes: a valid procedure in stimulating the onset of labour? Brit J Obstet Gynecol 1993, 100(10): 889-90 6. Wong et al. Does sweeping of membranes beyond 40 weeks reduce the need for formal incution of labour? Brit J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 109(6): 632-6 7. Sweeping of the membranes is an effective method of induction of labor in prolonged pregnancy: a report of a randomized trial. Brit J Obstet Gynecol 1992, 100(10): 898-903 8. McColgin et al. Partuitional factors associated with membrane stripping. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993, 169(1): 71-77 9. Keirse et al. Chronic stimulation of uterine prostaglandin synthesis during cervical ripening before the onset of labor. Prostaglandins, 1983, 25(5): 671-82 10. Goldenberg et al. Stretching of the cervix and stripping of the membranes at term: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 66(2): 129-32 11. Tannirandorn Y, Jumrustanasan T. A comparative study of membrane stripping and nonstripping for induction of labor in term pregnancy. J Med Assoc of Thailand 1999, 82(3): 229-32 12. Williams Obstetrics. McGraww-Hill Companies. New York, NY. 2000, 440-1. 13. Maternal-Fetal Medicine. WB Saunders. Philedelphia, PA. 1999. 644-5. 14. Induction of Labor. Compendium of Selected Publications. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Nunmber 10, Nov 1999, 437-482. Merck, Washington, DC 2005. 15. De Grace et al. Induction of labour with a favourable cervix and/or pre-labour rupture of membranes. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Oct;17(5):795-809. 16. Misoprostol versus expectant management in premature rupture of membranes at term. Brit Jour Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;112(9):1284-90. 17. Permature Rupture of Membranes. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Number 1, June 1998, pgs 697-705. 18. Sahraoui W. et al. Management of pregnancies beyond forty-one week's gestation with an unfavorable cervix. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2005 Sep;34(5):454-62.

Publications automatically indexed to this study by Identifier (NCT Number):