Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40406445›Full record

ReviewMaternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)2022

Evolving Frameworks for the Foundation and Practice of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Mark I Evans, David W Britt, Shara M Evans, Lawrence D Devoe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Antenatal Noninvasive Fetal Electrocardiography: A Literature Review.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Resistance to Change.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors.

Mark I EvansFetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, NY 10065, USA.
David W BrittFetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Shara M EvansFetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Lawrence D DevoeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30907, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CardiotocographyFetal monitoringFetal reserve index

Identifiers

PMID40406445
PMCPMC12094377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.