Abstract: We found two studies that met our inclusion criteria but they were of unclear quality. One study, involving 307 women, compared vaginal examinations with rectal examinations, and the other study, involving 150 women, compared two-hourly with four-hourly vaginal examinations. Both studies were of unclear quality in terms of risk of selection bias, and the study comparing the timing of the vaginal examinations excluded 27% (two hourly) to 28% (four hourly) of women after randomisation because they no longer met the inclusion criteria. When comparing routine vaginal examinations with routine rectal examinations to assess the progress of labour, we identified no difference in neonatal infections requiring antibiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.07, one study, 307 infants). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of length of labour, maternal infections requiring antibiotics and women's overall views of labour. The study did show that significantly fewer women reported that vaginal examination was very uncomfortable compared with rectal examinations (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.70, one study, 303 women). We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth, operative vaginal birth, perinatal mortality and admission to neonatal intensive care. Comparing two-hourly vaginal examinations with four-hourly vaginal examinations in labour, we found no difference in length of labour (mean difference in minutes (MD) -6.00, 95% CI -88.70 to 76.70, one study, 109 women). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of maternal or neonatal infections requiring antibiotics, and women's overall views of labour. We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, epidural for pain relief, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and operative vaginal birth. On the basis of women's preferences, vaginal examination seems to be preferred to rectal examination. For all other outcomes, we found no evidence to support or reject the use of routine vaginal examinations in labour to improve outcomes for women and babies. The two studies included in the review were both small, and carried out in high-income countries in the 1990s.  It is surprising that there is such a widespread use of this intervention without good evidence of effectiveness, particularly considering the sensitivity of the procedure for the women receiving it, and the potential for adverse consequences in some settings. The effectiveness of the use and timing of routine vaginal examinations in labour, and other ways of assessing progress in labour, including maternal behavioural cues, should be the focus of new research as a matter of urgency. Women's views of ways of assessing labour progress should be given high priority in any future research in this area.

Plain-language summary: We found two studies, undertaken in the 1990s in high-income countries, but their quality was unclear. One study, involving 307 women, compared routine vaginal and rectal examinations in labour. Here, fewer women reported that vaginal examinations were very uncomfortable compared with rectal examinations. The other study, involving 150 women, compared two-hourly and four-hourly vaginal examinations, but no difference in outcomes was seen. We identified no convincing evidence to support, or reject, the use of routine vaginal examinations in labour, yet this is common practice throughout the world. More research is needed to find out if vaginal examinations are a useful measure of both normal and abnormal labour progress. If vaginal examination is not a good measure of progress, there is an urgent need to identify and evaluate an alternative measure to ensure the best outcome for mothers and babies.