ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Clinical efficacy and acceptability of remote fetal heart rate self-monitoring in Southern China.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring in Pregnancy: Patient Experience and Acceptance in the Era of Digital Prenatal Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Smart Bracelets Among Chinese Pregnant and Postpartum Women: Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
- Remote home cardiotocography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Review of Non-Invasive Fetal Electrocardiography Monitoring Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompared to traditional fetal heart rate monitoring (FHR) for the outpatients in clinic, remote FHR monitoring shows real-time assessment of fetal wellbeing at home. The clinical function of remote FHR monitoring in pregnant wome in outpatient is still unclear.
objectiveTo explore the feasibility of remote FHR self-monitoring in singleton pregnant women from southern China. STUDY
designThis prospective cohort study was conducted at one tertiary center in southern China. Pregnant women used a mobile cardiotocogram device to measure the FHR at least once a week until delivery in the remote group. For the control group, pregnant women underwent traditional FHR monitoring once a week in the outpatient clinic. The rate of cesarean section, risk of postpartum hemorrhage and adverse neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. All the pregnant women completed a questionnaire survey to evaluate their acquisition of remote FHR self-monitoring.
resultsApproximately 500 women were recruited in the remote FHR self-monitoring group (remote group), and 567 women were recruited in the traditional FHR monitoring group (control group). The women in the remote FHR monitoring group were more likely to be nulliparous (P < 0.001), more likely to have a higher education level (P < 0.001) and more likely to be at high risk (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the risk of cesarean section (P = 0.068) or postpartum hemorrhage (P = 0.836) between the two groups. No difference in fetal complications was observed across groups, with the exception of the incidence of NICU stays, which was higher in the remote group (12.0% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.044). The questionnaire survey showed that the interval time (P = 0.001) and cost (P = 0.010) of fetal heart rate monitoring were lower in the remote group. Regarding age, prepregnancy BMI, risk factors, education level, maternal risk and household income, senior high school (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.67-4.90, P < 0.001), undergraduate (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.73-5.06, P < 0.001), advanced maternal age (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07-1.89, P = 0.015) and high-risk pregnancy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.35, P = 0.013) were independent factors for pregnant women to choose remote fetal monitoring. Multiparty (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.51, P < 0.001), full-time motherhood (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.678, P < 0.001) and high household income (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.88, P = 0.004) were negatively correlated with the choice of remote FHR self-monitoring.
conclusionRemote FHR self-monitoring technology has a lower cost and shows potential clinical efficacy for the outpatient setting in southern China. This approach does not increase the risk of cesarean section or adverse neonatal outcomes. It is acceptable among nulliparous pregnant women with a high education level, high household income or high risk. Further research is needed to assess the impact of this technology on obstetric outcomes in different health settings.
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.