ArticleInternational journal of health sciences2015
Rates and indicators of Continuous Electronic fetal monitoring - A study from Saudi Arabia.
Article in International journal of health sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis observational study aimed to describe the rates and indicators for continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during normal labour and to compare them between women who have had one pregnancy (PG) and women who have already delivered two or more children (G2 and above).
methodsThe study was conducted at Mother and Child Hospital, Buraidah from July-Sept, 2013 as a descriptive cross sectional study.
resultsSeventy four percent of labouring women had EFM and 25.7% had intermittent auscultation. Amongst the EFM group 62% were Primigravidas and 37.9% were multigravidas. When compared between PG and multigravidas, maconium staining (14.18vs 1.22, p value=0.001), maternal concerns for fetal heart rate (14.93 vs 6.10 p value=0.049), and syntocinon usage (14.18 vs 2.44 p value=0.005) were significantly prominent indications for Primigravidas. However trial of scar (0.00vs 15.85 p value <0.001) and associated medical problems (6.72 vs 19.51 p value 0.004) were the most frequent indications for G2 and above. For a large population of women including 13 PG and 18 Multigravidas (Overall 14.3%) there was no particular indication assigned for EFM and this was more frequent amongst Gravida2 and above (P < 0.013).
conclusionElectronic fetal monitoring is a very common obstetric intervention. It remains a challenge to review its rates and indications in order to identify areas that needs improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.