Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513971›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Management of reported decreased fetal movements for improving pregnancy outcomes.

G Justus Hofmeyr, Natalia Novikova

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Value of CODAC classification in identifying causes of stillbirths.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G Justus HofmeyrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of FortHare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, East London, South Afric. justhof@gmail.com.
Natalia Novikova
Frere Hospital · ZAUniversity of Fort Hare · ZA

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/02Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical observations indicate that mothers commonly perceive a reduction in, or absence of, the baby's movements for some days preceding a baby's death. For this reason, fetal movement monitoring is advised by caregivers and used spontaneously by mothers to assess the baby's well-being. However, it is possible that the harmful effects of interventions may outweigh the benefits of such testing. Evidence of effectiveness of fetal movement screening to improve outcomes is limited, though indirect evidence suggests a potential benefit. A secondary question is whether any specific management response to perceived decreased fetal movements (DFM) improves clinical outcome.

objectivesTo determine, from the best available evidence, the effectiveness of various management strategies for DFM. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012) and bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing various management strategies for DFM, including delivery, expectant management, cardiotocography (visual and computerised), ultrasound examination including Doppler ultrasound, and fetal arousal tests (cardiotocographic or clinical). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors evaluated potentially eligible trials for inclusion, and extracted data onto a purpose-designed form. Where DFM was one among a number of inclusion criteria for the trial, we contacted trial authors for information on outcomes specific to the DFM subgroups. MAIN

resultsNo randomised trials of management of DFM were found. Of 13 randomised trials of management strategies for pregnancies with risk factors for fetal compromise including DFM, data on the DFM subgroups could only be provided by the authors of one trial. The numbers were too small for meaningful analysis (there were 28 cases of DFM). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are insufficient data from randomised trials to guide practice regarding the management of DFM. Based on the results of other systematic reviews of management strategies for women whose babies are thought to be at risk of compromise for various reasons, the following strategies show promise and may be prioritised for further research: Doppler ultrasound studies, computerised cardiotocography, and fetal arousal to facilitate cardiotocography.For settings where electronic fetal assessment methods are not available, clinical fetal arousal tests should be investigated.

Indexed as

Fetal MovementPregnancy OutcomeFemaleFetal DistressFetal MonitoringHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID22513971
PMCPMC4058897
OpenAlexW2141563099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.