↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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 All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared maternal and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes when FPO was used in labour, with or without concurrent use of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 Unpublished pilot data were available for some outcomes to give a total of 1190 cases.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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 286 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 284 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Master 36 13%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Other 15 5%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 91 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 9%
Psychology 12 4%
Engineering 12 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 98 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,072,652
of 24,526,614 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,639
of 12,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,659
of 260,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,526,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 260,119 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.