Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40701589›Full record

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).

P B Q Berben, N D de Klerk, M van der Ven, A F Fransen, H J Niemarkt, E R van den Heuvel, M B van der Hout-van der Jagt, S G Oei, J O E H van Laar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT06135961 naunknown statusnot on this map

Implementation of Intrapartum Non-invasive Electrophysiological Monitoring

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaxima Medical CenterRan2023 to 2026Enrolled3,471ConditionsFetal Monitoring, Non-invasive, Cardiotocography, ElectrocardiographyArmseCTG monitoring with the NFMS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

P B Q BerbenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands phebe.berben@mmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-7909-3795
N D de KlerkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3861-9330
M van der VenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
A F FransenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
H J NiemarktDepartment of Paediatrics, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
E R van den HeuvelDepartment of Mathematics & Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
M B van der Hout-van der JagtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
S G OeiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
J O E H van LaarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Fetal MonitoringHeart Rate, FetalLabor, ObstetricAdultCardiotocographyCohort StudiesElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansNetherlandsPregnancyTertiary Care CentersFetal medicineImplementation ScienceNatural ChildbirthOBSTETRICSPERINATOLOGYPregnant Women

Identifiers

PMID40701589
PMCPMC12306333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.