↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
Title
Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004075.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E East, Lisa Begg, Paul B Colditz, Rosalind Lau

Abstract

Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) may contribute to the evaluation of fetal well-being during labour. To compare the effectiveness and safety of FPO with conventional surveillance techniques, using the results of randomised controlled trials. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (31 July 2004) and conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1994 to July 2004), EMBASE (1994 to July 2004) and Current Contents (1994 to July 2004). All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared maternal and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes when FPO was used in labour, with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, compared with using cardiotocography (CTG) alone. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. We sought additional information from the investigators of the one reported trial. One published RCT (comparing FPO and CTG with CTG alone) was included; and two ongoing RCTs were identified. The single included RCT reported on 1010 cases. Unpublished pilot data were available for some outcomes to give a total of 1190 cases. There was no difference in the overall caesarean section rate between the two groups (relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.37). There were less caesarean sections for nonreassuring fetal status in the FPO plus CTG group compared with the CTG only group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72). The only reported neonatal seizure occurred in the CTG only group (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.01 to 7.08). Use of FPO with CTG decreased operative delivery (caesarean section, forceps, vacuum) for nonreassuring fetal status (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93) compared with CTG alone. No differences were seen for overall operative deliveries, endometritis, intrapartum or postpartum haemorrhage, uterine rupture, low Apgar scores, umbilical arterial pH or base excess, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or fetal/neonatal death. The one published RCT reported that FPO decreased the caesarean section rate and operative delivery rates for nonreassuring fetal status, without adversely affecting maternal or fetal/neonatal outcomes. However, no difference was seen in the overall caesarean section (CS) or operative delivery rates because more CS were performed for dystocia in the FPO group. Further RCTs may address dystocia in labours monitored with FPO, maternal satisfaction with fetal monitoring and labour, long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of infants who exhibited nonreassuring fetal status in labour and costs of FPO.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 245 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Unspecified 19 8%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 58 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Unspecified 22 9%
Engineering 12 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 64 26%

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 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,441,396
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,271
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,672
of 254,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 254,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.