ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022
Quality of fetal heart rate monitoring with transabdominal fetal ECG during maternal movement in labor: A prospective study.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next-Generation Fetal Heart Monitoring: Leveraging Neural Sequential Modeling for Ultrasound Analysis.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Review of Non-Invasive Fetal Electrocardiography Monitoring Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the accuracy of a low-cost external tocodynamometer in a pilot study in Malawi.PloS one · 2025Article
- Emerging Paradigms in Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Evaluating the Efficacy and Application of Innovative Textile-Based Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Approach to Sensing the True Fetal Heart Rate for CTG Monitoring: An Evaluation of Effectiveness of Deep Learning with Doppler Ultrasound Signals.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Extracting fetal heart signals from Doppler using semi-supervised convolutional neural networks.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy and acceptability of remote fetal heart rate self-monitoring in Southern China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Quality of fetal heart rate monitoring with transabdominal fetal ECG during maternal movement in labor: A prospective study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTransabdominal electrocardiographic (TAfECG) acquisition of fetal heart rate (FHR) signals has recently been introduced into leading commercial cardiotocographic (CTG) monitors. Continuous wireless transmission of signals has raised the possibility of the technology being used during maternal mobilization in labor. This study aims to evaluate signal quality and accuracy of TAfECG acquisition of FHR signals during static and active maternal positions in labor when compared with Doppler signals and with the gold-standard method of fetal scalp electrode (FSE). MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 76 women with singleton term pregnancies in the active first stage of labor had simultaneously acquired FHR with TAfECG, Doppler, and FSE. Participants were asked to complete a supervised mobilization scheme, comprising five sequential 10-min periods of lying down, standing, sitting, walking, and rocking on the birthing ball. The three FHR signals were compared, defining signal loss as the percentage of signals under 20 bpm or exceeding 250 bpm and accuracy as the difference with FSE values. Computer analysis was used to quantify variability, accelerations, and decelerations. Static labor positions (lying down, standing, and sitting) were compared with active labor positions (walking and rocking on the birthing ball).
resultsAverage signal loss was 5.3% with TAfECG (3.2% in static and 7.4% in active positions) and 15.5% with Doppler (8.3% in static and 30.7% in active positions). Average accuracy was 3.5 bpm with TAfECG (1.9 bpm in static and 5.04 bpm in active positions) and 13.9 bpm with Doppler (3.2 bpm in static and 24.7 bpm in active positions). Average variability was similar with TAfECG and FSE in static positions but significantly higher with TAfECG in active positions (23.6 vs. 13.5 bpm, p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn static labor positions, TAfECG provides a low signal loss, similar to that obtained with FSE, and a good signal accuracy, so the technique can be considered reliable when the mother is lying down, standing, or sitting. During maternal movement, TAfECG causes an artificial increase in FHR variability, which can cause false reassurance regarding fetal oxygenation. Doppler signals are unreliable during maternal movements.
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.