Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31081113›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2019

Computer-based intrapartum fetal monitoring and beyond: A review of the 2nd Workshop on Signal Processing and Monitoring in Labor (October 2017, Oxford, UK).

Antoniya Georgieva, Patrice Abry, Václav Chudáček, Petar M Djurić, Martin G Frasch, René Kok, Christopher A Lear, Sebastiaan N Lemmens, Inês Nunes, Aris T Papageorghiou and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Improving Development of Drug Treatments for Pregnant Women and the Fetus.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. IMPROVING PHASE-RECTIFIED SIGNAL AVERAGING FOR FETAL HEART RATE ANALYSIS.Proceedings of the ... IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. ICASSP (Conference) · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Cardiotocography analysis by empirical dynamic modeling and Gaussian processes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Antoniya GeorgievaNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5543-6683
Patrice AbryUniversity of Lyon, Ens de Lyon, University Claude Bernard, CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique, Lyon, France.
Václav ChudáčekCIIRC, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Petar M DjurićElectrical and Computer Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Martin G FraschDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
René KokNemo Healthcare, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Christopher A LearDepartment of Physiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8937-0846
Sebastiaan N LemmensNemo Healthcare, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Inês NunesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Materno-Infantil do Norte-Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias e Serviços de Saúde, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Aris T PapageorghiouNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gerald J QuirkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Christopher W G RedmanNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Barry SchifrinEncino, California, USA.
Jiri SpilkaCIIRC, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Austin UgwumaduDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, St. George's University of London, London, UK.
Rik VullingsDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
University of Oxford · GBCzech Technical University in Prague · CZNemo Healthcare (Netherlands) · NLEindhoven University of Technology · NLEncino Hospital Medical Center · USSt George's, University of London · GBStony Brook University · USStony Brook University Hospital · USUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Rethinking Electronic Fetal Monitoring to Improve Perinatal Outcomes and Reduce Frequency of Operative Vaginal and Cesarean DeliveriesR01HD097188 · NICHD · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI DJURIC, PETAR M, QUIRK, J GERALD · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
Machine learning with generative mixture models for fetal monitoringR21HD080025 · NICHD · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI DJURIC, PETAR M, QUIRK, J GERALD · 2015 to 2016
$428k
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)Department of Health CDF-2016-09-004European Union Horizon 719500Health Research Council of New Zealand 17/601Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) CDF-2016-09-004NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD097188NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD080025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The second Signal Processing and Monitoring in Labor workshop gathered researchers who utilize promising new research strategies and initiatives to tackle the challenges of intrapartum fetal monitoring. The workshop included a series of lectures and discussions focusing on: new algorithms and techniques for cardiotocogoraphy (CTG) and electrocardiogram acquisition and analyses; the results of a CTG evaluation challenge comparing state-of-the-art computerized methods and visual interpretation for the detection of arterial cord pH <7.05 at birth; the lack of consensus about the role of intrapartum acidemia in the etiology of fetal brain injury; the differences between methods for CTG analysis "mimicking" expert clinicians and those derived from "data-driven" analyses; a critical review of the results from two randomized controlled trials testing the former in clinical practice; and relevant insights from modern physiology-based studies. We concluded that the automated algorithms performed comparably to each other and to clinical assessment of the CTG. However, the sensitivity and specificity urgently need to be improved (both computerized and visual assessment). Data-driven CTG evaluation requires further work with large multicenter datasets based on well-defined labor outcomes. And before first tests in the clinic, there are important lessons to be learnt from clinical trials that tested automated algorithms mimicking expert CTG interpretation. In addition, transabdominal fetal electrocardiogram monitoring provides reliable CTG traces and variability estimates; and fetal electrocardiogram waveform analysis is subject to promising new research. There is a clear need for close collaboration between computing and clinical experts. We believe that progress will be possible with multidisciplinary collaborative research.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAcidosisCardiotocographyElectrocardiographyFemaleFetal MonitoringHumansPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedUnited Kingdomartificial intelligencecardiotocographyelectronic fetal monitoringhealth datahypoxic-ischemic encephalopathyintrapartum caresensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID31081113
PMCPMC7135636
OpenAlexW2946127452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.