Comparison 18. One frequency of amniotic membranes sweeping versus another frequency of amniotic membrane sweeping (Favourable cervix/unfavourable cervix).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Induction of labour	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.19 [0.76, 1.85]
1.1 Favourable cervix	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Unfavourable cervix	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.19 [0.76, 1.85]
2 Caesarean section	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.60, 1.46]
2.1 Favourable cervix	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 Unfavourable cervix	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.60, 1.46]
3 Spontaneous vaginal birth	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.86, 1.17]
3.1 Favourable cervix	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 Unfavourable cervix	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.86, 1.17]
4 Maternal death or serious morbidity	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.30, 2.02]
4.1 Favourable cervix	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 Unfavourable cervix	1	234	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.30, 2.02]