Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16855950›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour.

J P Neilson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01131260 (A Randomized Trial of Fetal ECG ST Segment and T Wave Analysis as an Adjunct to Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01131260 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Trial of Fetal ECG ST Segment and T Wave Analysis as an Adjunct to Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring (STAN)

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe George Washington University Biostatistics CenterRan2010 to 2014Enrolled11,108ConditionsPregnancy, Obstetric Labor, ParturitionArmsfetal STAN monitor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Operative versus conservative management for 'fetal distress' in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Non-invasive fetal ECG analysis.Physiological measurement · 2014
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Fetal scalp sampling in labour.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J P NeilsonUniversity of Liverpool, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK L8 7SS. jneilson@liverpool.ac.uk
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypoxaemia during labour can alter the shape of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) waveform, notably the relation of the PR to RR intervals, and elevation or depression of the ST segment. Technical systems have therefore been developed to monitor the fetal ECG during labour as an adjunct to continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring with the aim of improving fetal outcome and minimising unnecessary obstetric interference.

objectivesTo compare the effects of analysis of fetal ECG waveforms during labour with alternative methods of fetal monitoring. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing fetal ECG waveform analysis with alternative methods of fetal monitoring during labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality assessment and data extraction were performed by the review author, without blinding. MAIN

resultsFour trials including a total of 9829 women were included. In comparison to continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring alone, the use of adjunctive ST waveform analysis (three trials, 8872 women) was associated with fewer babies with severe metabolic acidosis at birth (cord pH less than 7.05 and base deficit greater than 12 mmol/L) (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.00, data from 8108 babies), fewer babies with neonatal encephalopathy (three trials, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) although the absolute number of babies with encephalopathy was low (n = 17), fewer fetal scalp samples during labour (three trials, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and fewer operative vaginal deliveries (three trials, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). There was no statistically significant difference in caesarean section (three trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11), Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (three trials, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14), or admissions to special care unit (three trials, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08). Apart from a trend towards fewer operative deliveries (one trial, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01), there was little evidence that monitoring by PR interval analysis conveyed any benefit. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThese findings provide some support for the use of fetal ST waveform analysis when a decision has been made to undertake continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labour. However, the advantages need to be considered along with the disadvantages of needing to use an internal scalp electrode, after membrane rupture, for ECG waveform recordings.

Indexed as

Heart Rate, FetalLabor, ObstetricCardiotocographyEchocardiographyFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16855950
OpenAlexW4238602472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.