Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28559852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2017

Is Abdominal Fetal Electrocardiography an Alternative to Doppler Ultrasound for FHR Variability Evaluation?

Janusz Jezewski, Janusz Wrobel, Adam Matonia, Krzysztof Horoba, Radek Martinek, Tomasz Kupka, Michal Jezewski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cross-Database Evaluation of Deep Learning Methods for Intrapartum Cardiotocography Classification.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A New Approach for Testing Fetal Heart Rate Monitors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Janusz JezewskiInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Janusz WrobelInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Adam MatoniaInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Krzysztof HorobaInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Radek MartinekDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, VSB-Technical University of OstravaOstrava, Czechia.
Tomasz KupkaInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Michal JezewskiInstitute of Electronics, Silesian University of TechnologyGliwice, Poland.
Institute of Medical Technology and Equipment · PLSilesian University of Technology · PLVSB - Technical University of Ostrava · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Great expectations are connected with application of indirect fetal electrocardiography (FECG), especially for home telemonitoring of pregnancy. Evaluation of fetal heart rate (FHR) variability, when determined from FECG, uses the same criteria as for FHR signal acquired classically-through ultrasound Doppler method (US). Therefore, the equivalence of those two methods has to be confirmed, both in terms of recognizing classical FHR patterns: baseline, accelerations/decelerations (A/D), long-term variability (LTV), as well as evaluating the FHR variability with beat-to-beat accuracy-short-term variability (STV). The research material consisted of recordings collected from 60 patients in physiological and complicated pregnancy. The FHR signals of at least 30 min duration were acquired dually, using two systems for fetal and maternal monitoring, based on US and FECG methods. Recordings were retrospectively divided into normal (41) and abnormal (19) fetal outcome. The complex process of data synchronization and validation was performed. Obtained low level of the signal loss (4.5% for US and 1.8% for FECG method) enabled to perform both direct comparison of FHR signals, as well as indirect one-by using clinically relevant parameters. Direct comparison showed that there is no measurement bias between the acquisition methods, whereas the mean absolute difference, important for both visual and computer-aided signal analysis, was equal to 1.2 bpm. Such low differences do not affect the visual assessment of the FHR signal. However, in the indirect comparison the inconsistencies of several percent were noted. This mainly affects the acceleration (7.8%) and particularly deceleration (54%) patterns. In the signals acquired using the electrocardiography the obtained STV and LTV indices have shown significant overestimation by 10 and 50% respectively. It also turned out, that ability of clinical parameters to distinguish between normal and abnormal groups do not depend on the acquisition method. The obtained results prove that the abdominal FECG, considered as an alternative to the ultrasound approach, does not change the interpretation of the FHR signal, which was confirmed during both visual assessment and automated analysis.

Indexed as

Doppler ultrasoundfetal electrocardiogramfetal heart rate analysisfetal outcomefetal state assessment

Identifiers

PMID28559852
PMCPMC5432618
OpenAlexW2615696139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.