Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34664218›Full record

ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2022

Changing Perspectives of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Mark I Evans, David W Britt, Shara M Evans, Lawrence D Devoe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Enhancing agreement in cardiotocography interpretation between midwives and obstetricians through a rule-based AI program: A comparative cross-sectional study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Resistance to Change.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  12. Evolving Frameworks for the Foundation and Practice of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors.

Mark I EvansFetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, NY, USA. evans@compregen.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1705-799X
David W BrittFetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, NY, USA.
Shara M EvansDepartment of Maternal Child Health, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.
Lawrence D DevoeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The delivery of healthy babies is the primary goal of obstetric care. Many technologies have been developed to reduce both maternal and fetal risks for poor outcomes. For 50 years, electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been used extensively in labor attempting to prevent a large proportion of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. However, even key opinion leaders admit that EFM has mostly failed to achieve this goal. We believe this situation emanates from a fundamental misunderstanding of differences between screening and diagnostic tests, considerable subjectivity and inter-observer variability in EFM interpretation, failure to address the pathophysiology of fetal compromise, and a tunnel vision focus. To address these suboptimal results, several iterations of increasingly sophisticated analyses have intended to improve the situation. We believe that part of the continuing problem is that the focus of EFM has been too narrow ignoring important contextual issues such as maternal, fetal, and obstetrical risk factors, and increased uterine contraction frequency. All of these can significantly impact the application of EFM to intrapartum care. We have recently developed a new clinical approach, the Fetal Reserve Index (FRI), contextualizing EFM interpretation. Our data suggest the FRI is capable of providing higher accuracy and earlier detection of emerging fetal compromise. Over time, artificial intelligence/machine learning approaches will likely improve measurements and interpretation of FHR characteristics and other relevant variables. Such future developments will allow us to develop more comprehensive models that increase the interpretability and utility of interfaces for clinical decision making during the intrapartum period.

Indexed as

CardiotocographyLabor, ObstetricArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPrenatal CareArtificial intelligenceComputerized electronic fetal monitoringElectronic fetal monitoringFetal Reserve IndexScreening tests

Identifiers

PMID34664218
PMCPMC8522858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.