ArticleBMJ open2025
Non-invasive electrophysiological monitoring vs conventional monitoring during labour in a tertiary obstetric care centre in the Netherlands: study protocol of a cohort intervention random sampling study (NIEM-II study).
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06135961 (Implementation of Intrapartum Non-invasive Electrophysiological Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Implementation of Intrapartum Non-invasive Electrophysiological Monitoring
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrohysterography for Uterine Contractility Monitoring: Measurement Principles, Clinical Evidence, and Reporting Recommendations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The effect of labor epidural analgesia on uterine activity using electrohysterography monitoring: A follow-up study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing clinical scientific research: the cohort intervention random sampling study with historical controls.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConventional cardiotocography (CTG) has been used extensively to monitor the fetal condition during labour. However, conventional non-invasive monitoring is limited by the difficulty of obtaining an adequate signal quality, particularly in the case of obese parturients. Furthermore, the rate of operative deliveries keeps rising despite the ability for conventional intrapartum monitoring. Electrophysiological monitoring is an alternative technique that has been developed over the past decades to improve signal quality. This non-invasive, transabdominal and wireless alternative measures fetal heart rate by fetal electrocardiography (NI-fECG), and uterine activity by electrohysterography (EHG). Both NI-fECG and EHG have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than conventional non-invasive methods and are less affected by maternal Body Mass Index. Nevertheless, it is still unknown whether electrophysiological intrapartum monitoring leads to better obstetric and neonatal outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether electrophysiological monitoring during labour affects the number of operative interventions compared with conventional monitoring during labour. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre cohort intervention random sampling study which will be performed in a tertiary obstetric care centre. In total, 3471 term pregnant women with a singleton fetus in cephalic position and indication for continuous fetal monitoring during labour will be included. Eligible women will be prospectively included in the cohort for conventional monitoring. From these women, 90.9% of women will be randomly sampled and will be offered electrophysiological monitoring. A historical cohort of an additional 2100 women who received conventional monitoring will be added to the conventional group. This historical cohort was collected between April 2019 and February 2023. The primary outcome will be the number of operative interventions during labour. Secondary outcome measures include maternal and neonatal outcomes, patient and healthcare professional perspectives and costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of Máxima Medical Centre (W22.071) on 1 November 2023. All participants will provide informed consent prior to data collection. Results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06135961.
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.