Study	Reason for exclusion
Lopes 2001	Inadequate randomisation by hospital file number. 90 pregnant women (43 normal births, 27 forceps and 20 caesarean sections) were included in the study. Enema group did not provide faster labour and did not reduce faecal contamination.
Lurie 2012	Enemas given before cesarean section.
Mathie 1959	This is a trial that used for controls women receiving other interventions such as oral administration of castor oil and hot baths. It evaluated outcomes through physiologic measurements with a tocodynamometer. The studies were performed before labour. Neonatal or maternal morbidity or mortality was not evaluated. Labour duration was not evaluated either. It does not comply with inclusion criteria for this review.
Romney 1981	This was not a randomised controlled trial. A pilot study was done with a population of 84 consecutively admitted women who had no enema and compared them with 111 women admitted for induction of labour who received an enema. Later, they recruited 50 women with a haphazard allocation of enema vs no enema. The authors grouped the populations studied in the pilot and the main study together. No information regarding sample size selection is described. There is no description of the methodology of statistical analysis.
Rosenfield 1958	This is not a randomised controlled trial. There was no information about the characteristics of the included women.
Rutgers 1993	This was a case‐control study as described in the abstract. Sample size is not adjusted and its calculation is not based on risk analysis for case‐control studies.
Tzeng 2005	This is not a randomised controlled trial.
Whitley 1980	Observational study. Contamination was the main outcome and was measured according to the opinion of researchers. Labour duration, morbidity and mortality were not assessed.

vs: versus