Evidence mapPaperPMID 41237146Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

Remote maternal-fetal telemedicine monitoring for high-risk pregnancy care: A feasibility study.

Jack Le Vance, Alexandra Emms, Victoria Hodgetts Morton, R Katie Morris, Leo Gurney

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06366711 (Remote Antenatal Maternal-fetal Telemedicine Monitoring in High-risk Pregnancies), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT06366711 nacompletednot on this map

Remote Antenatal Maternal-fetal Telemedicine Monitoring in High-risk Pregnancies: a Feasibility and Acceptability Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorBirmingham Women's NHS Foundation TrustRan2024 to 2024Enrolled15ConditionsPregnancy, High Risk, Telemonitoring, Telemedicine, UltrasoundArmsPregnabit Pro device and PregnaOne platform, Pulsenmore device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Jack Le VanceDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1725-0116
Alexandra EmmsBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Victoria Hodgetts MortonDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-4313
R Katie MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Leo GurneyBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9262-781X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-risk pregnancies undergo regular antenatal monitoring, including cardiotocography (CTG) and ultrasound. Recently there has been an emergence of sophisticated remote telehealth interventions, potentially enabling care to be shifted into the home setting. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of home CTG and home ultrasound monitoring for high-risk pregnancies. This was a single center study. Women aged ≥18 years, English speaking, singleton pregnancy, ≥ 32 weeks gestation and had at least one of four high-risk obstetric conditions were eligible. Participants were randomized to one of three groups: (1) home ultrasound; (2) home CTG; and (3) both, whilst continuing their routine antenatal care. The primary outcome was completion of 20 minutes of interpretable fetal heart recording and/or completion of an interpretable fetal ultrasound for each monitoring episode. Ultrasound interpretability was assessed for three validated criteria: fetal heartbeat, fetal movements and liquor volume assessment. Secondary outcomes included monitoring adherence, anxiety management, acceptability and safety. Fifteen participants, within three groups, completed 24 remote ultrasounds and 59 remote CTGs. Overall, the fetal heartbeat, movements and an assessment of the liquor volume were identified in 92%, 83% and 100% of all ultrasound scans respectively. 79% of all scans had all three criteria unanimously assessed. Three-quarters of all CTGs contained at least 20 minutes of continuous interpretable computerized fetal heartrate recording. Neither ethnicity, parity, BMI nor fetal presentation were significant factors for achievement of the primary outcome for both devices. There was non-significant reduction in anxiety scores before and after device usage (p = 0.19). Participants' monitoring adherence and acceptability ratings were high in all groups. No adverse maternal-fetal outcomes relating to device usage occurred. Home ultrasound and cardiotocography are potentially feasible and acceptable to high-risk pregnant women. Larger studies are required to refine how best to implement such devices into clinical practice. ClinicalTrials ID: NCT06366711.

Indexed as

Fetal MonitoringPregnancy, High-RiskPrenatal CareTelemedicineAdultCardiotocographyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansPregnancyUltrasonography, PrenatalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41237146
PMCPMC12617905

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.