Observational studyActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023
Effectiveness of ambulatory non-invasive fetal electrocardiography: impact of maternal and fetal characteristics.
Observational study in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04941534 (AMBulatory Fetal ECG Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancies), which is not on this 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.
AMBulatory Fetal ECG Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancies
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The TRUFFLE monitoring protocol for early-onset fetal growth restriction: A clinical effectiveness study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- 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
- Ambulatory foetal ECG monitoring in low and high-risk pregnancies (AMBER2): a prospective cohort study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Antenatal Noninvasive Fetal Electrocardiography: A Literature Review.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 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
- Evaluation and patient experience of wireless noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring devices.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of ambulatory non-invasive fetal electrocardiography: impact of maternal and fetal characteristics.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Observational
- Independent component analysis algorithms for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNon-invasive fetal electrocardiography (NIFECG) has potential benefits over the computerized cardiotocography (cCTG) that may permit its development in remote fetal heart-rate monitoring. Our study aims to compare signal quality and heart-rate detection from a novel self-applicable NIFECG monitor against the cCTG, and evaluate the impact of maternal and fetal characteristics on both devices. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis prospective observational study took place in a university hospital in London. Women with a singleton pregnancy from 28 + 0 weeks' gestation presenting for cCTG were eligible. Concurrent monitoring with both NIFECG and cCTG were performed for up to 60 minutes. Post-processing of NIFECG produced signal loss, computed in both 0.25 (E240)- and 3.75 (E16)-second epochs, and fetal heart-rate and maternal heart-rate values. cCTG signal loss was calculated in 3.75-second epochs. Accuracy and precision analysis of 0.25-second epochal fetal heart-rate and maternal heart-rate were compared between the two devices. Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of maternal and fetal characteristics on signal loss. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04941534.
results285 women underwent concurrent monitoring. For fetal heart-rate, mean bias, precision and 95% limits of agreement were 0.1 beats per minute (bpm), 4.5 bpm and -8.7 bpm to 8.8 bpm, respectively. For maternal heart-rate, these results were -0.4 bpm, 3.3 bpm and -7.0 to 6.2 bpm, respectively. Median NIFECG E240 and E16 signal loss was 32.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 6.5%-68.5%) and 17.3% (IQR 1.8%-49.0%), respectively. E16 cCTG signal loss was 1.0% (IQR 0.0%-3.0%). For NIFECG, gestational age was negatively associated with signal loss (beta = -2.91, 95% CI -3.69 to -2.12, P < 0.001). Increased body mass index, fetal movements and lower gestational age were all associated with cCTG signal loss (beta = 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001; beta = 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.05, P = 0.014; and beta = -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05, P = 0.017, respectively).
conclusionsAlthough NIFECG is complicated by higher signal loss, it does not appear to be influenced by increased body mass index or fetal movement. NIFECG signal loss varies according to method of computation, and standards of signal acceptability need to be defined according to the ability of the device to produce clinically reliable physiological indices. The high accuracy of heart-rate indices is promising for NIFECG usage in the remote setting.
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.