ReviewMaternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)2022
Evolving Frameworks for the Foundation and Practice of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.
Review in Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antenatal Noninvasive Fetal Electrocardiography: A Literature Review.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2024Review
- The effect of continuous electronic fetal monitoring on mode of delivery and neonatal outcome among low-risk laboring mothers at Debre Markos comprehensive specialized hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Resistance to Change.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 1970s, electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) also known as cardiotocography (CTG) has been used extensively in labor around the world, despite its known failure to help prevent many babies from developing neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Part of EFM's poor performance with respect to these outcomes arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between screening and diagnostic tests, subjective classifications of fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns that lead to large inter-observer variability in its interpretation, failure to appreciate early stages of fetal compromise, and poor statistical modeling for its use as a screening test. We have developed a new approach to the practice and interpretation of EFM called the fetal reserve index (FRI) which does the following: (1) breaking FHR components down into 4 components, (heart rate, variability, accelerations, and decelerations); (2) contextualizing the metrics by adding increased uterine activity; (3) adding specific maternal, fetal, and obstetric risk factors. The result is an eight-point scoring metric that, when directly compared with current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists EFM categories, even in version 1.0 with equal weighting of variables, shows that the FRI has performed much better for identifying cases at risk before damage had occurred, reducing the need for emergency deliveries, and lowering overall Cesarean delivery rates. With increased data, we expect further refinements in the specifics of scoring that will allow even earlier detection of compromise in labor.
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.