Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34877659›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022

Home management by remote self-monitoring in intermediate- and high-risk pregnancies: A retrospective study of 400 consecutive women.

Anne Rahbek Zizzo, Lone Hvidman, Jannie Dalby Salvig, Lone Holst, Morten Kyng, Olav Bjørn Petersen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Task-shifting from healthcare staff to patients is necessary for the future.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne Rahbek ZizzoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0342-0708
Lone HvidmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jannie Dalby SalvigDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lone HolstDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Morten KyngDepartment of Computer Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9114-1164
Olav Bjørn PetersenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-4082
Aarhus University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Novo Nordisk Foundation NNFSA170030576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHome management in general is considered to improve patient well-being, patient involvement and cost-effectiveness, for obstetric patients as well. But concerns regarding inclusion of intermediate- and high-risk pregnant women are an issue and a limitation for clinical implementation. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome and safety of extended remote self-monitoring of maternal and fetal health in intermediate- and high-risk pregnancies. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study reports on 400 singleton pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, high-risk of preeclampsia, or a history of previous fetal or neonatal loss. Remote self-monitoring was performed by pregnant women and included C-reactive protein, non-stress test by cardiotocography, temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and a questionnaire concerning maternal and fetal wellbeing. Data were transferred to the hospital using a mobile device platform and evaluated by healthcare professionals. In case of non-reassuring registrations, the pregnant women were invited for assessment at the hospital. Primary outcome was perinatal death. Secondary outcomes were other maternal and perinatal complications.

resultsNo severe maternal complications were observed. Nine fetal or neonatal deaths occurred, all secondary to malformations, severe fetal growth restriction, extreme prematurity or lung hypoplasia in cases of PPROM before 24 weeks. Even in the latter group, fetal and neonatal survival was 78% (18/23) and rose to 97% (60/62) when PPROM occurred after a gestational age 23+6 weeks. None of the fetal or neonatal deaths were attributable to the home-management setting.

conclusionsHome-monitoring including remote self-monitoring of fetal and maternal well-being in intermediate- and high-risk pregnancies seems to be a safe alternative to inpatient or frequent outpatient care, which sets the stage for a new way of thinking of hospital care. The implementation process included staff training workshops and development of patient enrollment practice with clarification of expectations and responsibilities, which can be crucial to the results.

Indexed as

Patient CompliancePregnancy, High-RiskPrenatal CareSelf-TestingTelemedicineAdultBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCardiotocographyDenmarkFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesfetal growth retardationhome careperinatal mortalitypregnancypreterm premature rupture of fetal membranes

Identifiers

PMID34877659
PMCPMC9564422
OpenAlexW4200461551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.