Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22205952›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Fetal movement counting improved identification of fetal growth restriction and perinatal outcomes--a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

Eli Saastad, Brita A Winje, Babill Stray Pedersen, J Frederik Frøen

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Correlation between perinatal abnormalities and decreased fetal movement as counted by a fetal movement acceleration measurement recorder: A prospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Fetal Movement Counting Using Optical Fibre Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eli SaastadFaculty of Health, Nutrition and Management, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway. eli.saastad@hioa.no
Brita A Winje
Babill Stray Pedersen
J Frederik Frøen
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFetal movement counting is a method used by the mother to quantify her baby's movements, and may prevent adverse pregnancy outcome by a timely evaluation of fetal health when the woman reports decreased fetal movements. We aimed to assess effects of fetal movement counting on identification of fetal pathology and pregnancy outcome. METHODOLOGY: In a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, 1076 pregnant women with singleton pregnancies from an unselected population were assigned to either perform fetal movement counting from gestational week 28, or to receive standard antenatal care not including fetal movement counting (controls). Women were recruited from nine Norwegian hospitals during September 2007 through November 2009. Main outcome was a compound measure of fetal pathology and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Analysis was performed by intention-to-treat. PRINCIPAL

findingsThe frequency of the main outcome was equal in the groups; 63 of 433 (11.6%) in the intervention group, versus 53 of 532 (10.7%) in the control group [RR: 1.1 95% CI 0.7-1.5)]. The growth-restricted fetuses were more often identified prior to birth in the intervention group than in the control group; 20 of 23 fetuses (87.0%) versus 12 of 20 fetuses (60.0%), respectively, [RR: 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1)]. In the intervention group two babies (0.4%) had Apgar scores <4 at 1 minute, versus 12 (2.3%) in the control group [RR: 0.2 (95% CI 0.04-0.7)]. The frequency of consultations for decreased fetal movement was 71 (13.1%) and 57 (10.7%) in the intervention and control groups, respectively [RR: 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7)]. The frequency of interventions was similar in the groups.

conclusionsMaternal ability to detect clinically important changes in fetal activity seemed to be improved by fetal movement counting; there was an increased identification of fetal growth restriction and improved perinatal outcome, without inducing more consultations or obstetric interventions.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT00513942.

Indexed as

Fetal MovementAdultDelivery, ObstetricDelivery of Health CareFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHumansPregnancyPregnancy Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22205952
PMCPMC3244397
OpenAlexW2097104613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.