Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28205207›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Home uterine monitoring for detecting preterm labour.

Christine Urquhart, Rosemary Currell, Francoise Harlow, Liz Callow

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christine UrquhartDepartment of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, UK, SY23 3AS.
Rosemary CurrellPublic Health Directorate, Suffolk NHS Primary Care Trust, Rushbrook House, Paper Mill Lane, Bramford, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, IP8 4DE.
Francoise HarlowNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, UK, NR4 7UY.
Liz CallowUniversity of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Aberystwyth University · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Suffolk · GB

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with preterm birth, home uterine activity monitoring aims for early detection of increased contraction frequency, and early intervention with tocolytic drugs to inhibit labour and prolong pregnancy. However, the effectiveness of such monitoring is disputed.

objectivesTo determine whether home uterine activity monitoring is effective in improving the outcomes for women and their infants considered to be at high risk of preterm birth, when compared with care that does not include home uterine activity monitoring. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 June 2016), Embase (1974 to 28 June 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 28 June 2016), and scanned reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials of home uterine activity monitoring, with or without patient education programmes, for women at risk of preterm birth, compared with care that does not include home uterine activity monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We did not attempt to contact authors to resolve queries. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsThere were 15 included studies (6008 enrolled participants); 13 studies contributed data. Women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to experience preterm birth at less than 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; three studies, 1596 women; fixed-effect analysis) (GRADE high). This difference was not evident when we carried out a sensitivity analysis, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias based on study quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; one study, 1292 women). There was no difference in the rate of perinatal mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two studies, 2589 babies) (GRADE low).There was no difference in the number of preterm births at less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.85, CI 0.72 to 1.01; eight studies, 4834 women; random-effects, Tau AUTHORS'

conclusionsHome uterine monitoring may result in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit but in more unscheduled antenatal visits and tocolytic treatment; the level of evidence is generally low to moderate. Important group differences were not evident when we undertook sensitivity analysis using only trials at low risk of bias. There is no impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes such as perinatal mortality or incidence of preterm birth.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalObstetric Labor, PrematurePatient AdmissionPregnancyPremature BirthPrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUterine Monitoring

Identifiers

PMID28205207
PMCPMC6464057
OpenAlexW1906329661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.