Introduction
Induction of labour has been increasing over the last decade accounting
for a significant proportion of deliveries1. The
induction of labour is most often indicated for a variety of reasons
such as post-term pregnancy (defined as ≥42 weeks gestation), prelabour
rupture of the amniotic membranes, or when the safety of the baby or
mother may be compromised by a prolonged pregnancy2.
Methods for induction of labour include the use of prostaglandins,
oxytocin, mifepristone, nitric oxides, membrane sweeping, catheters,
amniotomies, and other non-traditional methods. The method of induction
depends on hospital protocol, national guidelines, and clinical
factors3. Each method has advantages and drawbacks
with implications for the well-being of the mother during and after
parturition. Since decisions regarding induction can be time-sensitive,
it is critical to define the efficacy and safety of the methods
employed.
Evidence-based medicine is defined as using the best available evidence
to inform clinical decision-making4. Systematic
reviews and meta-analyses sit at the top of the hierarchy of evidence
and integrate the best available evidence to aid in clinical-decision
making5. However, when multiple systematic reviews are
available and synthesis of their conclusions is not undertaken with
methodological rigour, the reliability of conclusions and thus the
validity of decisions arising from them may suffer. In the absence of a
thorough assessment of study quality and combining the knowledge gleaned
from multiple systematic reviews it becomes increasingly difficult for
clinicians, policy-makers, and other knowledge users to draw reliable
conclusions. To guide a minimal standard for preparing systematic
reviews and meta-analyses, the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed
and published in 2009. PRISMA is a 27-item checklist of reporting items
that are deemed essential for transparent conduct and reporting in
systematic reviews6. In addition to PRISMA, the
Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool
was developed to evaluate the methodological quality of a systematic
review and meta-analysis7. AMSTAR is an 11-item
validated and reliable tool that has been used in numerous studies to
evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. It is important to adhere to
both checklists to ensure transparent reporting. This systematic review
fulfills the PRISMA criteria, as well as the AMSTAR criteria where
applicable.