Heimstad 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Number of women randomised: 508 Setting: St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway Study date: women randomised between September 2002 and July 2004 Inclusion criteria Singleton pregnancies GA: 41+ weeks (at intervention GA = 406 and beyond) Cephalic presentation No PROM Primiparous (46%) and multiparous State of cervix: all stages included
Interventions	Inductiongroup (n = 254): if cervix favourable (Bishop score ≥ 6) AROM + oxytocin, if not (Bishop score < 6) 50 µg misoprostol vaginally versus EM group (n = 254): twice‐weekly ultrasound and CTG, labour induction after 300 days of pregnancy
Outcomes	Mother: prolonged labour; mode of birth; perineal trauma; maternal satisfaction; postpartum haemorrhage Baby: perinatal death; neonatal morbidity, for which a score was tallied (by evaluating the degree of deviation from the potential of a perfect outcome for each newborn as defined by the authors); neonatal trauma; birthweight; birthweight > 4000 g, NICU admission, birth asphyxia, meconium aspiration syndrome, Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes
Notes	Funding: not reported Declarations of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computerised randomisation using blocks of 16 with no stratification
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central allocation ‐ clinical trials office
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding was not feasible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinded outcome assessment was not mentioned.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No women were lost to follow‐up for clinical outcomes; 8 women did not complete the inclusion questionnaire; for the post‐birth telephone survey, 12 women were lost to follow‐up (4 in induction group and 8 in EM group).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	While all prespecified outcomes (in the methods) were reported, with no access to trial protocol, it was not possible to further assess selective reporting.
Other bias	Low risk	Appeared to be free of other bias