ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2025
Fetal Heart Rate and Amniotic Fluid Volume Measurements with a Home Ultrasound Device.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Teleultrasound in obstetrics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Self-administered tele-ultrasound in fetal telemonitoring: Prospective study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulsenmore ES is a self-scanning ultrasound (US) system for remote fetal assessment. It comprises a handheld transducer that serves as a smartphone cradle coupled with an application and clinician's web-viewer dashboard. Recently, a novel capability was added to the system allowing offline fetal heart rate (FHR) and maximal vertical pocket (MVP) measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate these tools for usability and accuracy.A prospective, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical study design was used. Pulsenmore ES scans were obtained by non-professional laypersons in app-guided (AG) mode (user follows video tutorials in the application) or clinician-guided (CG) mode (user is guided by a health care professional in a real-time telemedicine visit). The scans were stored on a cloud for later interpretation by a health care professional. Each self-scan was immediately followed by a standard US scan performed by a clinician. The asynchronous FHR and MVP measurements made on the AG and CG scans through the designated dashboard were analyzed and compared with the real-time, in-clinic (INC) measurements.The cohort included 28 women. Rates of successful utilization of the Pulsenmore tool for measurement of FHR were 84.7 ± 11.24% of scans made in AG mode and 96.3 ± 6.35% of scans made in CG mode. Corresponding values for MVP were 91.7 ± 2.31% and 95.0 ± 1.73%. FHR accuracy (difference from INC values) was 10.8 ± 7.5 beats per minute (bpm; 7.2%) in AG mode and 5.8 ± 5.1 bpm (4%) in CG mode. MVP accuracy was 1.3 ± 1.4 cm (22%) and 0.9 ± 0.8 cm (14%), respectively. Sensitivity (87.5% and 100% in AG and CG modes, respectively) and specificity (95% and 95.5% in AG and CG modes, respectively) were established for MVP.FHR and MVP measurements obtained from scans captured by the self-operated Pulsenmore ES ultrasound platform are highly accurate and reliable for clinical use relative to standard INC measurements. · Pulsenmore ES is a self-scanning US system for remote fetal assessment.. · FHR and MVP can be accurately and remotely measured from home.. · Home US can play a critical role in remote antenatal surveillance..
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.