ReviewJournal of clinical medicine research2018
Obstetrics at Decisive Crossroads Regarding Pattern-Recognition of Fetal Heart Rate Decelerations: Scientific Principles and Lessons From Memetics.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2018. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The survival of cardiotocography (CTG) as a tool for intrapartum fetal monitoring seems threatened somewhat unjustifiably and unwittingly despite the absence of better alternatives. Fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations are center-stage (most important) in the interpretation of CTG with maximum impact on three-tier classification. The pattern-discrimination of FHR decelerations is inexorably linked to their nomenclature. Unscientific or flawed nomenclature of decelerations can explain the dysfunctional CTG interpretation leading to errors in detection of acidemic fetuses. There are three contrasting concepts about categorization of FHR decelerations: 1) all rapid decelerations (the vast majority) should be grouped as "variable" because they are predominantly due to cord-compression, 2) all decelerations are due to chemoreflex from fetal hypoxemia hence their timing is not important, and 3) FHR decelerations should be categorized into "early/late/variable" based primarily on their time relationship to contractions. These theoretical concepts are like memes (ideas/beliefs). Lessons from "memetics" are that the most popular, attractive or established beliefs may not necessarily be true, scientific, beneficial or even without harm. Decelerations coincident with contractions with trough corresponding to the peak of contractions cannot be explained by cord-compression or increasing hypoxia (from compromised uteroplacental perfusion, cord-compression or even cerebral hypoperfusion/anoxia purportedly conceivable from head-compression). Decelerations due to hypoxemia would be associated with delayed recovery of decelerations (lag phase). It is a scientific imperative to cast away disproven/falsified theories. Practices based on unscientific theories lead to patient harm. Clinicians should urgently adopt the categorization of FHR decelerations based primarily of the time relationship to contractions as originally proposed by Hon and Caldeyro-Barcia. This analytical review shows it to be underpinned by most robust physiological and scientific hypotheses unlike the other categorizations associated with untruthful hypotheses, irreconcilable fallacies and contradictions. Without truthful framework and meaningful pattern-recognition of FHR decelerations, the CTG will not fulfil its true potential.
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.