Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40406280›Full record

ReviewMaternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)2024

Antenatal Noninvasive Fetal Electrocardiography: A Literature Review.

Claire Pegorie, Becky Liu, Basky Thilaganathan, Amar Bhide

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Claire PegorieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.
Becky LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.
Basky ThilaganathanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.
Amar BhideDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring is one of the central parts of obstetric care. Ultrasound-based technologies such as cardiotocography (CTG) remain the most common method for FHR monitoring. The CTG's limitations, including subjective interpretation, high interobserver variability, and the need for skilled professionals, led to the development of computerized CTG (cCTG). While cCTG demonstrated advantages, its superiority over visual interpretation remains inconclusive. This has prompted the exploration of alternatives like noninvasive fetal electrocardiography (NIFECG). This review explores the landscape of antenatal FHR monitoring and the need for remote FHR monitoring in a patient-centered care model. Additionally, FHR monitoring needs to evolve from the traditional approach to incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning. The review underscores the importance of aligning fetal monitoring with modern healthcare, leveraging artificial intelligence algorithms for accurate assessments, and enhancing patient engagement. The physiology of FHR variability (FHRV) is explained emphasizing its significance in assessing fetal well-being. Other measures of FHRV and their relevance are described. It delves into the promising realm of NIFECG, detailing its history and recent technological advancements. The potential advantages of NIFECG are objective FHR assessment, beat-to-beat variability, patient comfort, remote prolonged use, and less signal loss with increased maternal body mass index. Despite its promise, challenges such as signal loss must be addressed. The clinical application of NIFECG, its correlation with cCTG measures, and ongoing technological advancements are discussed. In conclusion, this review explores the evolution of antenatal FHR monitoring, emphasizing the potential of NIFECG in providing reliable, home-based monitoring solutions. Future research directions are outlined, urging longitudinal studies and evidence generation to establish NIFECG's role in enhancing fetal well-being assessments during pregnancy.

Indexed as

Ambulatory monitoringFetal heart-rate monitoringFetal heart rate variabilityNoninvasive fetal electrocardiography

Identifiers

PMID40406280
PMCPMC12087900

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.