Study	Reason for exclusion
Abramovici 1999	It is unclear whether all women had Foley catheter (included as 'intention to ripe the cervix' with Foley catheter). Women only received a Foley catheter when they had no dilation at the start of induction (for this study this was the control group), and concurrent oxytocin was started. It is unclear how many women received a Foley catheter.
Adeniji 2005a	Primary outcome fibronectin, other outcomes not mentioned.
Adeniji 2005b	High‐dose misoprostol
Adeniji 2006	Outcome cervical scores, other outcomes not mentioned.
Afolabi 2005	Only reports outcomes for the successfully induced, thus not useful.
Ahmad 2015	laminaria vs Foley => not within scope of review
Anabosy 2014	Trial stopped before start patient inclusion because of technical issues
Arsenijevic 2012	No dilatator vs hegar vs continues, controlled, balloon dilator => not within scope of review
Arshad 2016	Laminaria prior to PGE2 vs nothing prior to PGE2 => not within scope of review
Atad 1991	No randomised comparison of mechanical methods. A subgroup of women were randomised to receive PGE2 or placebo.
Atad 1999	Compares 2 mechanical regimens.
Baacke 2006	Trial registration, expected end date expired > 2 years. no information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Barrilleaux 2002a	High‐dose misoprostol
Behrashi 2013	Trial registration with no publication. anticipated end date 2013 => no information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Ben‐Aroya 2001	There is no mention of randomisation in the abstract. Retrospective cohort study.
Buccellato 2000	High‐dose misoprostol
Cahill 1988	Alternate randomisation.
Caughey 2007	Balloon high vs low volume => not within scope of review
Chipato 1997	2 regimens of extra‐amniotic infusion compared.
Chung 2003	High‐dose misoprostol
Connolly 2016	Foley+ oxytocin vs Foley => not within scope of review
Connolly 2017	Foley + oxytocin vs Foley (multiparae) => not within scope of review
Cross 1978	Randomisation based on the last digit of the hospital chart number. 6 women were excluded in the laminaria group, and 1 in the control group. No clinical outcomes were reported.
Cullimore 2009	Trial registration. study terminated after n = 5).no information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
De Oliveira 2003	Foley vs no ripening => not in scope
Delaney 2010	Comparison of 2 mechanical methods.
Demirel 2015	Nipple stimulation, no mechanical method included
Dias 2008	Trial registration, expected end date expired > 2 years. no information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Du 2015	Not randomised. women could choose induction method
Edwards 2017	Foley + PGE2 vs Foley => not within scope of review
El Sharkwy 2017	Foley + miso vs Foley (and miso after 12 hours) => not within scope of review
El‐Khayat 2016	Foley + isorbide mononitrate vs misoprostol => not within scope of review
El‐Torkey 1995	Foley + EASI vs Foley => not in scope
Emery 1988	No information.
EUCTR 2012	Trial registration, expected end date expired > 2 years. no information obtained (authors were contacted)
Filshie 1992	Insufficient information.
Forgie 2016	Placement stylette vs no stylette => not within scope of review
Forooshani 2011	Foley vs laminaria => not within scope of review
Fruhman 2017	Tension vs no tension => not within scope of review
Gadel 2015	Cervical ripening in case of stillbirth
Garebedian 2016	Foley vs expectative management
Ghanaei 2009	Foley + oxytocin vs EASI + oxytocin
Ghanaie 2013	Foley +oxytocin vs EASI + oxytocin vs PGE2 + oxytocin => not within scope of review
Gibson 2013	different kind of traction applied => not within scope of review
Gilson 1996	Dilapan vs no treatment => not in scope
Gonsoulin 1989	No clinical outcome reported.
Gower 1982	Laminaria vs placebo => not in scope
Greybush 2001	High‐dose misoprostol
Gu 2015	Low‐ vs high‐volume balloon => not within scope of review
Guinn 2004	Compares 2 mechanical regimens.
Haghighi 2015	EASI vs isoniazide => not within scope of review
Hallak 2008	Foley vs Foley + EASI vs ATAD + EASI => not in scope
He 2000	Air vesicle odinopoeia => not within scope of review
Hill 2009	High‐dose misoprostol
Hill 2013	Balloon + miso vs balloon + placebo => not within scope of review
Hussein 2012	Induction for fetal demise or early PE (begin third trimester), so no viable fetus
Ifnan 2006	Hydrostatic membrane sweeping vs Foley => not within scope of review
Jagani 1984	An extra‐amniotic catheter is used in all groups to record the uterine activity. This catheter uses a 5 mL balloon, which is much lower than the volume used by the other authors (30 mL to 40 mL). Thus, this study is a comparison between oxytocin and PG, with a control group without intervention.
Jasper 2000	No clinical outcome reported (reported as abstract).
Jindal 2007	Methods are interchanged after 24 hours, outcomes are given for the totals.
Jonsson 2011	Digital vs manual placement Foley => not within scope of review
Kamilya 2011	Trial registration, expected end date expired > 2 years. no information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Karjane 2006	Compares 2 mechanical regimens.
Kasdaglis 2007	The randomisation scheme is unclear and the numbers in both groups are very different (32 and 24).
Kashanian 2006	High‐dose misoprostol
Kashanian 2009a	Comparison of 2 mechanical regimens.
Kehl 2012	2 hours cook balloon before vaginal miso vs no balloon before vaginal miso => not within scope of review
Kehl 2015	Balloon before oral misoprostol vs no balloon before oral misoprostol => not within scope of review
Keirse 1983	No clinical outcome reported.
Lackritz 1979	Laminaria vs no treatment => not in scope
Lam 2006	Foley +oxytocin vs EASI + oxytocin => not within scope of review
Leiberman 1977	Alternate inclusion in each group. Imbalance between groups in numbers and prognostic factors.
Leong 2017	Menbrane sweeping vs Foley => not within scope of review
Levine 2016	High‐dose misoprostol
Levy 2000	Comparison between early and late amniotomy.
Levy 2004	Comparison between 2 mechanical regimens.
Lin 1995	Laminaria vs EASI => not in scope
Lin 2006	Trial registration only, study terminated.
Lin 2007	Compares 2 mechanical regimens.
Lutgendorf 2012	Traction vs no traction => not within scope of review
Macpherson 1983	No clinical outcomes mentioned.
Mahomed 1988	Foley catheter under traction compared with Foley catheter with extra‐amniotic PGE2.
Manabe 1985	No clinical outcomes.
Manish 2016	High‐ vs low‐volume balloon
Manyonda 2007	Balloon vs expectant management => not in scope
Martin 1989	Comparison of induction of labour vs surveillance in post‐term pregnancy.
Mattingly 2015	Double balloon 12 hours vs double balloon 24 hours
Mawire 1999	EASI vs PGE f2 alpha => not in scope
McGee 2016	Foley silicone vs Foley latex
Mei‐Dan 2009	Comparison of 2 mechanical regimens.
Mei‐Dan 2012	Trial terminated before start.
Mei‐Dan 2012a	Foley +EASI vs Cook balloon
Mei‐Dan 2014	Single balloon + EASI vs double balloon + EASI
Miller 2015	Induction vs expectant management. (choice of induction method was up to clinician.)
Moise 1991	Duplicate information, already included.
Morrison 1993	Insufficient information.
Movahed 2016	Foley vs laminaria vs isorbide mononitrate
Mullin 2014	Direct removal of Foley or not
Naseem 2007	Quasi‐experimental, every second patient gets Foley
Nasir 2012	Quasi‐experimental
Neethurani 2013	Foley + EASI followed by miso vs miso
Owolabi 2005	High‐dose misoprostol
Park 2011	Trial registration, expected end date expired > 2 years. No information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Pathiraja 2014	Trial registration, anticipated end date (2014) has expired > 2 years. No information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Pedersen 1981	Comparison of the addition or not of estradiol to Foley catheter.
Pettker 2008	Comparison of 2 mechanical regimens.
Rameez 2007	Nitric oxide vs vitamin C
Reif 2012	Trial registration, anticipated end date (2015) has expired > 2 years. No information could be obtained (authors were contacted)
Rezk 2014	Foley vs isorbide mononitrate
Rust 2001	High‐dose misoprostol
Saad 2016	Foley vs laminaria
Saito 1999	Comparison of 2 mechanical regimens.
Salmeen 2012	Outpatient, pre‐induction Foley before pharmacological hospital induction
Sanchez‐Ramos 1990	Insufficient information.
Sandberg 2017	High vs low volume
Schoen 2017	Foley + oxytocin vs Foley
Schreyer 1989	Allocation of women was performed according to alternate weeks.
Sciscione 2001	High‐dose misoprostol
Sharma 2015a	Foley: direct removal or not.
Sharma 2017	Foley vs mifepristone => not in scope
Sherman 2001	Comparison of PGE2 infusion vs saline infusion extra‐amniotically. This comparison is not included in this review.
Siddiqui 2013	Placement Foley: stylette vs no stylette
Suri 2000	No clinical outcome reported (reported only as abstract).
Thigpen 2004	Compares a mechanical method with very high dose misoprostol (250 mcg).
Thomas 1986	Randomisation by odd and even numbers of hospital charts
Torbenson 2015	Outpatient Foley vs inpatient miso or Foley. Choice of inpatient method by clinician, so no RCT
Ugwu 2013	Balloon vs misoprostol, crossover after 24 hours
Vengalil 1998	High‐dose misoprostol
Walfisch 2014	Foley vs expectative management
Walfisch 2015	Balloon + EASI vs balloon
Welt 1987	Insufficient information.
Wickramasinghe 2014	Foley 24 hours vs Foley 48 hours
Wilkinson 2015	Inpatient vs outpatient double balloon
Yaddehige 2015	Membrane sweeping vs massage => not in scope
Yazdani 2011	Trial registration of which anticipated end date (2008) has expired > 2 years. Trial was registered in retrospect. not clear why there is no publication. no information could be obtained (author contacted)
Zakaria 2017	Different charriere Foley catheter
Zhang 2014	Trial registration, anticipated end date (2015) has expired > 2 years. No information could be obtained (authors contacted)
Zimmer 1996	No outcomes reported. The authors focused on breathing movements of the fetus.

EASI: extra‐amniotic space infusion
 PG: prostaglandin
 PGE2: prostaglandin E2 
 RCT: randomised controlled trial
 vs: versus