ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2019
Development of Electrohysterogram Recording System for Monitoring Uterine Contraction.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication improves epidural labor analgesia onset and reduces procedural pain on epidural puncture: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Different Concentrations of Chloroprocaine with Lidocaine for Activating Epidural Analgesia During Labor.International journal of general medicine · 2022Trial
- Article
- Assessment of Features between Multichannel Electrohysterogram for Differentiation of Labors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Recognition of uterine contractions with electrohysterogram and exploring the best electrode combination.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2022Article
- Electrodes in external electrohysterography: a systematic literature review.Biophysical reviews · 2021Review
- Acquisition and Analysis of Electrohysterogram Signal.Journal of medical systems · 2020Article
- Evaluation of electrohysterogram measured from different gestational weeks for recognizing preterm delivery: a preliminary study using random Forest.Biocybernetics and biomedical engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine contraction (UC) is an important clinical indictor for monitoring uterine activity. The purpose of this study is to develop a portable electrohysterogram (EHG) recording system (called PregCare) for monitoring UCs with EHG signals. The PregCare consisted of sensors, a signal acquisition device, and a computer with application software. Eight-channel EHG signals, the tocodynamometry (TOCO) signal, and maternal perception were recorded simultaneously by the signal acquisition device controlled by the computer via Bluetooth. PregCare was firstly evaluated by a signal simulator. Its relative error (RE) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated, and its agreement with the commercial instrument PowerLab was assessed by Bland-Altman plots. After that, PregCare was applied to 20 pregnant women in a hospital to record their EHG signals. These EHG signals were preprocessed and segmented into UCs and non-UCs. Then, the EHG features corresponding to UCs and non-UCs were extracted, respectively, including power spectral density (PSD), root mean square (RMS), peak frequency (PF), median frequency (MDF), and sample entropy (SamEn). One-way ANOVA was employed to assess the difference between UCs and non-UCs. The results show that RE and CV were less than 8% and 0.03%, respectively, which indicated the high accuracy and repeatability of PregCare. The small differences of mean and standard deviation indicated the high agreement between PregCare and PowerLab. Besides, the PSD of UCs was much larger than non-UCs between 0 and 0.7 Hz. RMS of UCs was significantly larger than non-UCs (
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.