ArticlePloS one2019
ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram - Comments on recent experimental data.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their paper, Andriessen at al present a validation of fetal ECG analysis and the clinical STAN device in midgestation fetal lambs exposed to 25 minutes of umbilical cord occlusion. The study presents results that contrast remarkably from previously published experimental data which raises a number of questions and comments. The most striking finding of Andriessen et al is the recording of an extremely high number of alarms from the STAN equipment during control conditions when no alarms at all are expected. These patterns have never been seen, neither in the clinical situation nor in our own fetal sheep studies. The reason for this becomes apparent when their way of recording the FECG is scrutinized. In their assessment of STAN, Andriessen at al use an assumed negative aVF lead with the assumption that it will reflect the FECG in the same way as the unipolar scalp lead used clinically. The signal used for disqualification of STAN is itself not qualified to properly represent the fetal scalp lead signal that STAN is designed for. To question a proven technology is fully accepted but those attempting would be asked to argue along fully validated data and related analysis including questioning of their own data.
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.