Ryan Chow

and 5 more

Background: The induction of labour has been increasing over the last decade. It is most often indicated when the safety of the baby or mother may be compromised. Objectives: This study aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of various methods of induction of labour. Search Strategy: An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The search strategy can be found in the online supplement. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews that examined various methods of induction of labour. Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the main text. Data Collection and Analysis: Study characteristics such as journal and impact factor, year of publication, source of funding, citation rate, etc. were retrieved. Quality assessment was conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Main Results: There were no significant relationships between mean AMSTAR score and number of citations (p=0.0875, r=0.25; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.50), journal impact factor (p=0.2959, r=-0.15; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.14), or publication year (p=0.5827, r=0.08; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.36). Cochrane studies on average scored higher than non-Cochrane studies (p=0.01). No significant differences were detected between the AMSTAR scores of government and non-government funded studies (p=0.34). Conclusions: Better adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and for peer reviewers to appraise new systematic reviews with methodological assessment tools would enhance confidence in review conclusions.