Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37360259›Full record

ReviewCurrent obstetrics and gynecology reports2023

Intrapartum Oxygen for Fetal Resuscitation: State of the Science.

Julia Burd, Nandini Raghuraman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current obstetrics and gynecology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia BurdDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63108 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1002-0489
Nandini RaghuramanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63108 USA.
Barnes-Jewish Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: This review aims to summarize the current evidence regarding maternal oxygen supplementation for Category II fetal heart tracings (FHT) in labor. We aim to evaluate the theoretical rationale for oxygen administration, the clinical efficacy of supplemental oxygen, and the potential risks. Recent Findings: Maternal oxygen supplementation is an intrauterine resuscitation technique rooted in the theoretic rationale that hyperoxygenating the mother results in increased oxygen transfer to the fetus. However, recent data suggest otherwise. Randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of oxygen supplementation in labor suggest no improvement in umbilical cord gases or other adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes compared to room air. Two meta-analyses demonstrated that oxygen supplementation is not associated with an improvement in umbilical artery pH or reduction in cesarean delivery. Although we lack data on definitive clinical neonatal outcomes with this practice, there is some suggestion of adverse neonatal outcomes with excess in utero oxygen exposure, including lower umbilical artery pH. Summary: Despite historic data suggesting the benefit of maternal oxygen supplementation in increasing fetal oxygenation, recent randomized trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated a lack of efficacy of this practice and some suggestion of harm. This has led to conflicting national guidelines

Indexed as

Intrapartum resuscitationNon-reassuring fetal statusOxygen

Identifiers

PMID37360259
PMCPMC10191681
OpenAlexW4376866853

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.