ReviewSeminars in perinatology2016
What we have learned about intrapartum fetal monitoring trials in the MFMU Network.
Review in Seminars in perinatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Clinician Identification of Birth Asphyxia Using Intrapartum Cardiotocography Among Neonates With and Without Encephalopathy in New Zealand.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Complexity of brain signals is associated with outcome in preterm infants.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2017Article
- Electronic fetal monitoring, cerebral palsy, and caesarean section: assumptions versus evidence.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The vast majority of pregnant women are subjected to electronic fetal heart monitoring during labor. There is limited evidence to support its benefit compared with intermittent auscultation. In addition, there is significant variability in interpretation and its false-positive rate is high. The latter may have contributed to the rise in operative deliveries. In order to address the critical need for better approaches to intrapartum monitoring, the MFMU Network has completed two large multisite randomized trials, one to evaluate fetal pulse oximetry and the other to evaluate fetal ECG ST segment analysis (STAN). Both of these technologies had been approved for clinical use in the United States based on prior smaller trials. These technologies were evaluated in laboring women near term and their primary outcomes were overall cesarean delivery for the oximetry trial and a composite adverse neonatal outcome for STAN. Both the trials failed to show a benefit of the technology, neither in the rates of operative deliveries nor in the rates of adverse neonatal outcomes. The experience with these trials, summarized in this report, highlights the need for rigorous evidence before introduction of new technology into clinical practice and provides a blueprint for future trials to address the need for better intrapartum monitoring approaches.
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.