↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intermittent auscultation (IA) of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
511 Mendeley
Title
Intermittent auscultation (IA) of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008680.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Martis, Ova Emilia, Detty S Nurdiati, Julie Brown

Abstract

The goal of fetal monitoring in labour is the early detection of a hypoxic baby. There are a variety of tools and methods available for intermittent auscultation (IA) of the fetal heart rate (FHR). Low- and middle-income countries usually have only access to a Pinard/Laënnec or the use of a hand-held Doppler device. Currently, there is no robust evidence to guide clinical practice on the most effective IA tool to use, timing intervals and length of listening to the fetal heart for women during established labour. To evaluate the effectiveness of different tools for IA of the fetal heart rate during labour including frequency and duration of auscultation. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (19 September 2016), contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs comparing different tools and methods used for intermittent fetal auscultation during labour for fetal and maternal well-being. Quasi-RCTs, and cross-over designs were not eligible for inclusion. All review authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each trial. Data were checked for accuracy. We included three studies (6241 women and 6241 babies), but only two studies are included in the meta-analyses (3242 women and 3242 babies). Both were judged as high risk for performance bias due to the inability to blind the participants and healthcare providers to the interventions. Evidence was graded as moderate to very low quality; the main reasons for downgrading were study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Intermittent Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) using Cardiotocography (CTG) with routine Pinard (one trial)There was no clear difference between groups in low Apgar scores at five minutes (reported as < six at five minutes after birth) (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.83, 633 babies, very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for perinatal mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.25; 633 infants, very low-quality evidence). Neonatal seizures were reduced in the EFM group (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 633 infants, very low-quality evidence). Other important infant outcomes were not reported: mortality or serious morbidity (composite outcome), cerebral palsy or neurosensory disability. For maternal outcomes, women allocated to intermittent electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) (CTG) had higher rates of caesarean section for fetal distress (RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.80, 633 women, moderate-quality evidence) compared with women allocated to routine Pinard. There was no clear difference between groups in instrumental vaginal births (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.49, low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported (maternal mortality, instrumental vaginal birth for fetal distress and or acidosis, analgesia in labour, mobility or restriction during labour, and postnatal depression). Doppler ultrasonography with routine Pinard (two trials)There was no clear difference between groups in Apgar scores < seven at five minutes after birth (reported as < six in one of the trials) (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.87; two trials, 2598 babies, I(2) = 72%, very low-quality evidence); there was high heterogeneity for this outcome. There was no clear difference between groups for perinatal mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.40; 2597 infants, two studies, very low-quality evidence), or neonatal seizures (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.91; 627 infants, one study, very low-quality evidence). Other important infant outcomes were not reported (cord blood acidosis, composite of mortality and serious morbidity, cerebral palsy, neurosensory disability). Only one study reported maternal outcomes. Women allocated to Doppler ultrasonography had higher rates of caesarean section for fetal distress compared with those allocated to routine Pinard (RR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.48, 627 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in instrumental vaginal births between groups (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32, 627 women, low-quality evidence). Other maternal outcomes were not reported. Intensive Pinard versus routine Pinard (one trial)One trial compared intensive Pinard (a research midwife following the protocol in a one-to-one care situation) with routine Pinard (as per protocol but midwife may be caring for more than one woman in labour). There was no clear difference between groups in low Apgar score (reported as < six this trial) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.31, 625 babies, very low-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences identified for perinatal mortality (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.67; 625 infants, very low-quality evidence), or neonatal seizures (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, 625 infants, very low-quality evidence)). Other infant outcomes were not reported. For maternal outcomes, there were no clear differences between groups for caesarean section or instrumental delivery (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.38, and RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.11, respectively, 625 women, both low-quality evidence)) Other outcomes were not reported. Using a hand-held (battery and wind-up) Doppler and intermittent CTG with an abdominal transducer without paper tracing for IA in labour was associated with an increase in caesarean sections due to fetal distress. There was no clear difference in neonatal outcomes (low Apgar scores at five minutes after birth, neonatal seizures or perinatal mortality). Long-term outcomes for the baby (including neurodevelopmental disability and cerebral palsy) were not reported. The quality of the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low and several important outcomes were not reported which means that uncertainty remains regarding the use of IA of FHR in labour.As intermittent CTG and Doppler were associated with higher rates of caesarean sections compared with routine Pinard monitoring, women, health practitioners and policy makers need to consider these results in the absence of evidence of short- and long-term benefits for the mother or baby.Large high-quality randomised trials, particularly in low-income settings, are needed. Trials should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes, comparing different monitoring tools and timing for IA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 511 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 511 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 15%
Researcher 64 13%
Student > Bachelor 57 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 4%
Other 86 17%
Unknown 159 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 80 16%
Psychology 26 5%
Social Sciences 23 5%
Unspecified 12 2%
Other 56 11%
Unknown 184 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,486,595
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,112
of 12,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,859
of 417,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 417,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.