Sande 1983.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Number of women randomised: 166 Setting: Ulleval Hospital, Norway Study date: not reported Inclusion criteria GA: between 40 and 41 weeks Normal pregnancy Vertex presentation Singleton fetus Bishop score 5 points or more Exclusion criteria Not described State of cervix: Bishop score ≥ 5
Interventions	Induction group (n = 76): IOL on the following morning after randomisation; IV oxytocin (10 units in 1 L 5% glucose) immediately following AROM. Women were monitored by CTG versus EM group (n = 90): waited for spontaneous labour to occur, following the normal procedure for the department (labour was induced after 42 weeks)
Outcomes	Mother: duration of first and second stages of labour; pain relief; mode of birth (caesarean birth; vacuum; forceps; spontaneous birth); postpartum bleeding; induction to birth interval Baby: liveborn; neonatal death; birthweight; Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes; morbidity (transfer to NICU; paediatric examination of 1st and 5th day)
Notes	Only data for perinatal death, stillbirth and neonatal death included in meta‐analyses
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of sequence generated was not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of allocation concealment was not reported.
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	High risk	Per protocol analysis performed. Of the 76 women randomised to the induction group, 23 birthed spontaneously before induction In the EM group, 15 of the 90 women passed 42 weeks and had their labour induced. Therefore, there were a total of 68 women who had their labour induced, and 98 birthed spontaneously (results analysed as such, not as per randomisation).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	A number of outcomes such as birthweight, postpartum bleeding, and neonatal morbidity were reported incompletely in the text, e.g. “no differences” and “ns.”
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information by randomisation group