↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
123 tweeters
facebook
31 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 Mendeley
Title
Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005122.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Declan Devane, Joan G Lalor, Sean Daly, William McGuire, Anna Cuthbert, Valerie Smith

Abstract

The admission cardiotocograph (CTG) is a commonly used screening test consisting of a short (usually 20 minutes) recording of the fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine activity performed on the mother's admission to the labour ward. This is an update of a review published in 2012. To compare the effects of admission cardiotocography with intermittent auscultation of the FHR on maternal and infant outcomes for pregnant women without risk factors on their admission to the labour ward. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register to 30 November 2016 and we planned to review the reference list of retrieved papers. All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing admission CTG with intermittent auscultation of the FHR for pregnant women between 37 and 42 completed weeks of pregnancy and considered to be at low risk of intrapartum fetal hypoxia and of developing complications during labour. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included no new trials in this update. We included four trials involving more than 13,000 women which were conducted in the UK and Ireland and included women in labour. Three trials were funded by the hospitals where the trials took place and one trial was funded by the Scottish government. No declarations of interest were made in two trials; the remaining two trials did not mention declarations of interest. Overall, the studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Results reported in the 2012 review remain unchanged.Although not statistically significant using a strict P < 0.05 criterion, data were consistent with women allocated to admission CTG having, on average, a higher probability of an increase in incidence of caesarean section than women allocated to intermittent auscultation (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.44, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the average treatment effect across included trials between women allocated to admission CTG and women allocated to intermittent auscultation in instrumental vaginal birth (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.27, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 38%, low quality evidence) and perinatal mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.47, 4 trials, 11,339 infants, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence).Women allocated to admission CTG had, on average, higher rates of continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48, 3 trials, 10,753 women, I² = 79%, low quality evidence) and fetal blood sampling (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.45, 3 trials, 10,757 women, I² = 0%) than women allocated to intermittent auscultation. There were no differences between groups in other secondary outcome measures including incidence and severity of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (incidence only reported) (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.90; 2367 infants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence) and incidence of seizures in the neonatal period (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8056 infants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There were no data reported for severe neurodevelopmental disability assessed at greater than, or equal to, 12 months of age. Contrary to continued use in some clinical areas, we found no evidence of benefit for the use of the admission CTG for low-risk women on admission in labour.Furthermore, the probability is that admission CTG increases the caesarean section rate by approximately 20%. The data lacked power to detect possible important differences in perinatal mortality. However, it is unlikely that any trial, or meta-analysis, will be adequately powered to detect such differences. The findings of this review support recommendations that the admission CTG not be used for women who are low risk on admission in labour. Women should be informed that admission CTG is likely associated with an increase in the incidence of caesarean section without evidence of benefit.Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency and a lack of blinding for participants and personnel. All four included trials were conducted in developed Western European countries. One additional study is ongoing.The usefulness of the findings of this review for developing countries will depend on FHR monitoring practices. However, an absence of benefit and likely harm associated with admission CTG will have relevance for countries where questions are being asked about the role of the admission CTG.Future studies evaluating the effects of the admission CTG should consider including women admitted with signs of labour and before a formal diagnosis of labour. This would include a cohort of women currently having admission CTGs and not included in current trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 123 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 251 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 20%
Researcher 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 56 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 16%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 67 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#272,414
of 17,648,139 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#566
of 11,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,648
of 366,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,648,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.