Afzal 2015.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Setting: Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Benazir Bhutto hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Duration of study: Jan 2008 to Dec 2008. Inclusion criteria: “Singleton second pregnancy with previous one lower segment transverse cesarean section, having longitudinal lie and cephalic presentation at 37 weeks of gestation confirmed by ultrasonography were included in the study. There was no absolute indication of cesarean section in present pregnancy.” page 386. Exclusion criteria: “Patients with any contraindication for vaginal delivery like cephalopelvic disproportion, breech and placenta previa, maternal medical disorders necessitating urgent delivery like severe pre‐eclampsia were excluded from the study.” page 386. Parity: not recorded Bishop score: not recorded
Interventions	Membrane stripping (n = 55): “Membrane sweeping was started a 37 weeks and was done every 3rd day till she went into the labor or she reached 41 weeks. Even at 41 weeks of gestation if she did not go into labor, induction with prostaglandin or elective lower segment cesarean section was done depending upon the bishop score.” Page 386. Control group (N = 55): women “were not subjected to such membrane sweeping and spontaneous onset of labor was awaited till 41 weeks. After 41 weeks induction with prostaglandin or elective lower segment cesarean section was done depending upon the bishop score.” Page 386.
Outcomes	Normal vaginal delivery Caesarean section Assisted vaginal delivery Spontaneous onset of labour before 41 weeks
Notes	Funding: none declared Trial authors’ declaration of interest: none declared Informed consent obtained: yes; “Informed consent was taken from each patient” page 386. Ethical approval: not stated Email sent to author 28 July 2017 requesting further information Resent 20 September 2017. No reply to date.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	“were randomly allocated to Group‐A (sweeping of membrane) and Group‐B (no intervention)” page 386. Insufficient information given to inform a judgement.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information given to inform a judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants: not reported. Personnel: not reported, but unlikely that clinicians were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No evidence of attrition bias
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No selective reporting bias noted. Protocol not available.
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias noted. Protocol not available.