Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33259507›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A systematic scoping review to identify the design and assess the performance of devices for antenatal continuous fetal monitoring.

Kajal K Tamber, Dexter J L Hayes, Stephen J Carey, Jayawan H B Wijekoon, Alexander E P Heazell

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Fetal heart rate responses to maternal sleep-disordered breathing.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Kajal K TamberFaculty of Biology, Division of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1634-329X
Dexter J L HayesFaculty of Biology, Division of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Stephen J CareySchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jayawan H B WijekoonSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alexander E P HeazellFaculty of Biology, Division of Developmental Biology and Medicine, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntepartum fetal monitoring aims to assess fetal development and wellbeing throughout pregnancy. Current methods utilised in clinical practice are intermittent and only provide a 'snapshot' of fetal wellbeing, thus key signs of fetal demise could be missed. Continuous fetal monitoring (CFM) offers the potential to alleviate these issues by providing an objective and longitudinal overview of fetal status. Various CFM devices exist within literature; this review planned to provide a systematic overview of these devices, and specifically aimed to map the devices' design, performance and factors which affect this, whilst determining any gaps in development.

methodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EMCARE, BNI, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Pubmed databases. Following the deletion of duplicates, the articles' titles and abstracts were screened and suitable papers underwent a full-text assessment prior to inclusion in the review by two independent assessors.

resultsThe literature searches generated 4,885 hits from which 43 studies were included in the review. Twenty-four different devices were identified utilising four suitable CFM technologies: fetal electrocardiography, fetal phonocardiography, accelerometry and fetal vectorcardiography. The devices adopted various designs and signal processing methods. There was no common means of device performance assessment between different devices, which limited comparison. The device performance of fetal electrocardiography was reduced between 28 to 36 weeks' gestation and during high levels of maternal movement, and increased during night-time rest. Other factors, including maternal body mass index, fetal position, recording location, uterine activity, amniotic fluid index, number of fetuses and smoking status, as well as factors which affected alternative technologies had equivocal effects and require further investigation.

conclusionsA variety of CFM devices have been developed, however no specific approach or design appears to be advantageous due to high levels of inter-device and intra-device variability.

Indexed as

Prenatal CareAccelerometryElectrocardiographyFemaleFetal MonitoringFetal MovementGestational AgeHeart Rate, FetalHumansPregnancySignal Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID33259507
PMCPMC7707469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.