ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022
Accuracy, interpretability and usability study of a wireless self-guided fetal heartbeat monitor compared to cardiotocography.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing signal loss, accuracy, and acceptability of an ambulatory fetal electrocardiography with cardiotocography in the antepartum and intrapartum phases.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Use and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Antenatal Fetal Surveillance for Patients With Chronic Conditions.O&G open · 2026Article
- Remote home cardiotocography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and acceptability of remote fetal heart rate self-monitoring in Southern China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fetal Cardiography is usually performed using in-hospital Cardiotocographic (CTG) devices to assess fetal wellbeing. New technologies may permit home-based, self-administered examinations. We compared the accuracy, clinical interpretability, and user experience of a patient-administered, wireless, fetal heartbeat monitor (HBM) designed for home use, to CTG. Initially, participants had paired HBM and CTG examinations performed in the clinic. Women then used the HBM unsupervised and rated the experience. Sixty-three women had paired clinic-based HBM and CTG recordings, providing 6982 fetal heart rate measures for point-to-point comparison from 126 min of continuous recording. The accuracy of the HBM was excellent, with limits of agreement (95%) for mean fetal heart rate (FHR) between 0.72 and -1.78 beats per minute. The FHR was detected on all occasions and confirmed to be different from the maternal heart rate. Both methods were equally interpretable by Obstetricians, and had similar signal loss ratios. Thirty-four (100%) women successfully detected the FHR and obtained clinically useful cardiographic data using the device at home unsupervised. They achieved the required length of recording required for non-stress test analysis. The monitor ranked in the 96-100
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.