ArticlePloS one2020
Is short-term-variation of fetal-heart-rate a better predictor of fetal acidaemia in labour? A feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The maternal-fetal communicatome: a scoping review and network physiology perspective on a unified, adaptive, and multiscale interaction network.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Review
- Maternal hemodynamics and computerized cardiotocography during labor with epidural analgesia.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Observational
- Detection of Suspicious Cardiotocographic Recordings by Means of a Machine Learning Classifier.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous intrapartum fetal monitoring is challenging and its clinical benefits are debated. The project evaluated whether short-term-variation (STV) and other computerised fetal heart rate (FHR) parameters (baseline FHR, long-term-variation, accelerations and decelerations) predicted acidaemia at birth. The aims of the study were to assess the changes in FHR pattern during labour and determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial by reporting the practicalities of using the monitoring device, participant recruitment, data collection and staff training.
methods200 high-risk women carrying a term singleton, non-anomalous fetus, requiring continuous FHR monitoring in labour were consented to participate from the Jessop Wing maternity unit, Sheffield, UK. The trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitor was placed as per clinical protocol. During the monitoring session, clinicians were blinded to the computerised FHR parameters. We analysed the last hour of the FHR and its ability to predict umbilical arterial blood pH <7.20 using receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves.
resultsOf 200 women, 137 cases were excluded as either the monitor did not work from the onset of labour (n = 30), clinical staff did not return or used the monitor on another patient (n = 37), umbilical cord blood not obtained (n = 25), FHR data not recorded within an hour of birth (n = 34) and other reasons (n = 11). In 63 cases included in the final analysis, the computer-derived FHR parameters did not show significant correlation with umbilical artery cord pH <7.20. Labour was associated with a significant increase in short and long term variation of FHR and number of deceleration (P<0.001). However, baseline FHR decreased significantly before delivery (P<0.001).
conclusionsThe project encountered a number of challenges, with learning points crucial to informing the design of a large study to evaluate the potential place of intrapartum computerised FHR parameters, using abdominal fetal ECG monitor before its clinical utility and more widespread adoption can be ascertained.
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.