Gelisen 2005.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Number of women randomised: 600 Setting: teaching hospital in Ankara, Turkey; recruitment dates not reported Inclusion criteria Singleton pregnancy Vertex presentation Intact membranes Bishop score of < 5 Absence of spontaneous uterine contractions (< 4 per hour) Estimated fetal body weight < 4500 g Reactive NST Amniotic fluid index ≥ 5 cm GA at intervention: 41 completed weeks (287 days +/‐ 1 day) Exclusion criteria Allergic to prostaglandins Previous caesarean section Non‐cephalic presentation Body mass index 30 or more before conception Parity 5 or more Low‐lying placenta Previous labour induction attempt State of cervix: unfavourable ‐ Bishop score < 5 Just under half the women were nulliparous.
Interventions	Induction group: labour induction (3 methods*) (1) vaginal administration of 50 mg misoprostol (n = 100) (2) oxytocin induction (n = 100), and (3) transcervical insertion of a Foley balloon (n = 100) versus Expectant management group: spontaneous follow‐up with twice‐weekly nonstress testing and amniotic fluid measurement and once‐weekly biophysical scoring (n = 300); 24% of women were induced after 42 completed weeks. *the 3 induction arms were combined for analyses
Outcomes	Mother: oligohydramnios; pre‐eclampsia; tachysystole; hyperstimulation; vaginal birth; caesarean (emergent abdominal birth for worrying FHR); failed IOL Baby: perinatal death; shoulder dystocia; meconium stained amniotic fluid; meconium aspiration syndrome; fetal anomaly; low Apgar scores (< 7 at 5 mins); umbilical artery pH < 7.16; NICU admission; fetal macrosomia; birthweight; birthweight > 4000 g; length of hospital stay
Notes	Funding: not reported Declarations of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of sequence generation was not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment was by sealed, opaque envelopes but there is no mention of numbering and sequential opening of the envelopes.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding: "Staff members in charge of labor were not blinded to the type of medication used for induction".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinded outcome assessment not mentioned.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No apparent losses to follow‐up or exclusions.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	While pre‐specified outcomes (in the methods) were reported, no access to trial protocol to further assess selective reporting.
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other bias.