Taylor 1993.

Methods	Prospective randomised trial; sealed, numbered envelopes; no sample size calculation
Participants	Setting: UK Women requiring labour induction due to prolonged pregnancy or pre‐eclampsia, 1 previous pregnancy delivered by lower segment CS, singleton in cephalic presentation, GA ≥ 37 weeks, BS < 9, no cephalopelvic disproportion anticipated
Interventions	Amniotomy and IV oxytocin (n = 21) versus 2.5 mg vaginal PGE2 pessary, followed by amniotomy 3 h later + oxytocin (if necessary) 6 h later (n = 21)
Outcomes	Induction to delivery time, analgesia, mode of delivery, uterine rupture
Notes	Only half of the women included had an unfavourable cervix (BS < 6) 1 uterine rupture in PGE 2 group (after oxytocin) reported in abstract Sellers 1988 (see Taylor 1993)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"predetermined code envelope."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not feasible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding was not described in the report
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data of all women included were reported, no ITT analysis done
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Published report includes expected outcomes, but no outcome measures were prespecified in the methods section
Other bias	Low risk	The baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups