Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25622043›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Wireless fetal heart rate monitoring in inpatient full-term pregnant women: testing functionality and acceptability.

Adeline A Boatin, Blair Wylie, Ilona Goldfarb, Robin Azevedo, Elena Pittel, Courtney Ng, Jessica Haberer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05778435 (The Effect Of The Wireless Fetal Monitoring Used During Birth On The Women's Comfort, Labour Pain And Birth Satisfaction), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

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

NCT05778435 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Effect Of The Wireless Fetal Monitoring Used During Birth On The Women's Comfort, Labour Pain And Birth Satisfaction

TypeinterventionalSponsorTokat Gaziosmanpasa UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled88ConditionsPregnancy RelatedArmswireless fetal monitoring system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Adeline A BoatinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Blair WylieDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Ilona GoldfarbDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Robin AzevedoDepartment of Nursing, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Elena PittelDepartment of Nursing, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Courtney NgMassachusetts General Hospital Center for Global Health, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jessica HabererMassachusetts General Hospital Center for Global Health, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

Household air pollution in Tanzania, placental health and pregnancy outcomeK23ES021471 · NIEHS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI WYLIE, BLAIR JOHNSON · 2012 to 2016
$1.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS K23 ES021471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We tested functionality and acceptability of a wireless fetal monitoring prototype technology in pregnant women in an inpatient labor unit in the United States. Women with full-term singleton pregnancies and no evidence of active labor were asked to wear the prototype technology for 30 minutes. We assessed functionality by evaluating the ability to successfully monitor the fetal heartbeat for 30 minutes, transmit this data to Cloud storage and view the data on a web portal. Three obstetricians also rated fetal cardiotocographs on ease of readability. We assessed acceptability by administering closed and open-ended questions on perceived utility and likeability to pregnant women and clinicians interacting with the prototype technology. Thirty-two women were enrolled, 28 of whom (87.5%) successfully completed 30 minutes of fetal monitoring including transmission of cardiotocographs to the web portal. Four sessions though completed, were not successfully uploaded to the Cloud storage. Six non-study clinicians interacted with the prototype technology. The primary technical problem observed was a delay in data transmission between the prototype and the web portal, which ranged from 2 to 209 minutes. Delays were ascribed to Wi-Fi connectivity problems. Recorded cardiotocographs received a mean score of 4.2/5 (± 1.0) on ease of readability with an interclass correlation of 0.81(95%CI 0.45, 0.96). Both pregnant women and clinicians found the prototype technology likable (81.3% and 66.7% respectively), useful (96.9% and 66.7% respectively), and would either use it again or recommend its use to another pregnant woman (77.4% and 66.7% respectively). In this pilot study we found that this wireless fetal monitoring prototype technology has potential for use in a United States inpatient setting but would benefit from some technology changes. We found it to be acceptable to both pregnant women and clinicians. Further research is needed to assess feasibility of using this technology in busy inpatient settings.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCardiotocographyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansPatient SatisfactionPilot ProjectsPregnancyWireless TechnologyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25622043
PMCPMC4306498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.