ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Electrohysterography for Uterine Contractility Monitoring: Measurement Principles, Clinical Evidence, and Reporting Recommendations.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable monitoring of uterine contractility underpins the assessment of labor, the diagnosis of preterm labor, and the timing of obstetric intervention, yet routine methods measure only the mechanical consequences of contraction. External tocodynamometry and cardiotocography (CTG) are operator- and position-dependent and perform poorly with maternal obesity, detecting as few as ~54% of the contractions confirmed by an intrauterine pressure catheter, whereas surface electrohysterography (EHG) detects upward of ~94% by recording the myometrial electrical activity that drives contraction. This review examines EHG and uterine electromyography (EMG) as measurement modalities, covering their physiological origin, acquisition hardware, signal characteristics, feature extraction, and machine-learning analysis, and compares them with CTG against the intrauterine pressure catheter reference standard. Electrical approaches additionally yield predictive parameters, notably spectral peak frequency and propagation velocity, that mechanical methods cannot provide. The principal barrier to translation is methodological heterogeneity rather than physiology: differences in electrodes, filtering, feature definitions, and outcome measures preclude cross-study comparison and meta-analysis. As its central contribution, this review consolidates prior calls for standardization into a minimum reporting set for EHG studies and appraises translational readiness, identifying prospective external validation, shared datasets, explainable models, and outcome-linked trials as priorities.
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.