Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17253530›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing.

L Mangesi, G J Hofmeyr

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Cerebroplacental ratio and neonatal outcome in low-risk pregnancies with reduced fetal movement: A prospective study.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2022
    Article
  12. The Effects of Fetal Movement Counting on Pregnancy Outcomes.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antepartum evaluation of the fetus and fetal well being.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

L MangesiFrere Maternity Hospital, Effective Care Research Group, Private Bag X9047, East London, South Africa, 5200. ecru@global.co.za
G J Hofmeyr
Frere Hospital · ZATrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFetal movement counting is a method by which a woman quantifies the movements she feels to assess the condition of the baby. The purpose is to try to reduce perinatal mortality by alerting caregivers when the baby might have become compromised. This method may be used routinely, or only in women who are considered at increased risk of complications in the baby. Some clinicians believe that fetal movement counting is a good method as it allows the clinician to make appropriate interventions in good time. On the other hand, fetal movement counting may cause anxiety to women.

objectivesTo assess outcomes of pregnancy where fetal movement counting was done routinely, selectively or was not done at all; and to compare different methods of fetal movement counting. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) and the reference lists of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. Trials were excluded where allocation concealment was inadequate and no measures were taken to prevent bias were excluded. The interventions included routine fetal movement counting, selective fetal movement counting, and studies comparing different fetal assessment methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data from studies. MAIN

resultsFour studies, involving 71,370 women, were included in this review; 68,654 in one cluster-randomised trial. All four trials compared formal fetal movement counting. Two trials compared different types of counting with each other; one with no formal instruction, and one with hormonal analysis. Women in the formal fetal movement counting group had significantly fewer visits to the hospital antenatally than those women randomised to hormone analysis (relative risk (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.35), whereas there were fewer Apgar scores less than seven in five minutes for women randomised to hormone analysis (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.93). There was a significantly higher compliance with the Cardiff 'count to ten' method than with the formal fetal movement counting method (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.32).All other outcomes reported were non significant. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review does not provide enough evidence to influence practice. In particular, no trials compared fetal movement counting with no fetal movement counting. Robust research is needed in this area.

Indexed as

FemaleFetal MonitoringFetal MovementHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17253530
OpenAlexW4235653206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.