Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 27;2020(2):CD000451. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3

Hamdan 2009.

Methods Randomised controlled trial
Participants Setting: Outpatient clinic, University hospital, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Duration of study: 3.5 year period. 2002 to 2005
Inclusion criteria: “Women with one transverse lower segment cesarean scar, a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membranes, and gestational age more than 36 weeks who were agreeable to VBAC and passed specialist assessment for VBAC”. Page 746
Exclusion criteria: “obstetric contraindications to VBAC (e.g. placenta previa, suspected macrosomia, suspected cephalopelvic disproportion, abnormal fetal lie, and obstructive pelvic masses).” Page 746
Parity: only multiparous women included.
Bishop score: Bishop score at each session recorded (session 1 to 5).
Interventions Membrane stripping (N = 108):
“Immediately after randomization, women assigned to “sweep” had their cervix stretched and membranes stripped from the lower uterine segment in the manner as previously described.” Page 746
Control group (N = 105):
“Women assigned to “no sweep” had a gentle vaginal examination for their Bishop score. Page 746
“Weekly follow‐up sessions based at the antenatal clinic with the investigators were arranged to repeat membrane sweeping or vaginal examination until delivery. The Bishop score was recorded at each session
In our center, induction of labor for prolonged pregnancy is typically offered at 41 weeks of gestation.19 Induction of labor for diabetes that required drug treatment is offered at 38 weeks and for gestational diabetes adequately controlled by diet, induction of labor is offered at 40 weeks.20 Upon prelabor rupture of membranes, women were offered either immediate uterine stimulation, typically with oxytocin, or expectant inpatient management for up to 24 hours.21 All women with a previous cesarean delivery who were offered formal induction of labor were counselled about a higher risk of scar rupture and of unplanned cesarean delivery and the option of a planned repeat cesarean delivery was given.” Page 746
Outcomes Spontaneous onset of labour
Induction of labour
Caesarean section
Spontaneous vaginal delivery
Augmentation of labour
Instrumental delivery
Caesarean delivery
PPH
Epidural analgesia
Umbilical cord artery PH < 7.1
Apgar score 6 or less at 5 minutes
Notes Funding: none declared
Trial authors’ declaration of interest: none declared
Informed consent obtained: “All participants provided written informed consent.”
Ethical approval: ethical approval for the trial was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Center, page 746
Emailed 30 August 2017 requesting further information sent.Resent 20 September 2027. No reply to date.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk “prepared by an author (M.H.) in blocks of 50 using a computer‐generated randomization sequence (available online at http://www.random.org/).”
Page 746
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk “sequential opening of numbered sealed opaque envelopes indicating “Sweep” or “No Sweep.” Only investigators aware of allocation.
Page 746
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Participants: “Blinding of participants and delivery providers was effected by a policy of not revealing allocated treatment to them unless requested for an important clinical need. There was no request to unblind during the trial. Page 746
Personnel: Only investigators aware of allocation. However it appears investigators preformed membrane sweep. All participants received standard management by delivery providers.”
Page 746
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Collected by authors who are noted to be blind until data analysis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All outcomes reported. “Analysis by intention to treat”. Page 747
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting bias noted. Protocol not available
Other bias Low risk No evidence of other bias noted. Protocol not available