ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Assessing signal loss, accuracy, and acceptability of an ambulatory fetal electrocardiography with cardiotocography in the antepartum and intrapartum phases.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing signal loss, accuracy, and acceptability of an ambulatory fetal electrocardiography with cardiotocography in the antepartum and intrapartum phases.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionElectronic fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring is integral to antepartum and intrapartum care to detect fetal compromise, reducing neonatal morbidity and mortality. Conventional wired cardiotocography (CTG) limits mobility, birthing positions, and potentially increases instrumental births. Wireless non-invasive fetal electrocardiography (NIFECG) aims to address these challenges. However, NIFECG has limitations, including signal interference and limited accuracy data for FHR and uterine contraction (UC) monitoring. This study aimed to (i) quantify acceptable NIFECG traces based on signal loss in women ≥37 weeks' gestation; (ii) compare FHR and UC monitoring accuracy between NIFECG and CTG; (iii) and assess NIFECG acceptability. MATERIAL AND
methodsA prospective cohort involving women with singleton pregnancies ≥37 weeks' gestation was conducted between August 2020 and April 2023 in KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. Women underwent 40 min of concurrent NIFECG and CTG monitoring during antepartum and intrapartum phases. Data were compared in 3.75-s epochs. Based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics guidelines, NIFECG traces with signal loss ≤20% were accepted. FHR monitoring accuracy was assessed using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analyses. UC monitoring accuracy was determined by a fourfold contingency table with CTG as a gold standard. Acceptability was assessed via post-monitoring feedback questionnaire.
resultsOne hundred and three women contributed to 124 paired traces. Seventy-three traces (58.9%) were acceptable, comprising 52 antepartum (56.5%) and 21 intrapartum traces (65.6%). Bland-Altman (bias: -0.4 beats per minute, 95% limits of agreement: [-9.0, 8.1]) and Passing-Bablok (slope = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-0.98) analyses showed high agreement between NIFECG and CTG FHR measurements. NIFECG showed a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) and sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.89-0.92) for UC monitoring. Additionally, 90.1% of women and 88.9% of nurses preferred NIFECG.
conclusionsNIFECG has comparable accuracy to CTG for FHR and UC monitoring during the antepartum and intrapartum phases and is well-accepted by women and nurses. Given that 41.1% of NIFECG traces were rejected due to signal loss, further research on improving the technology to reduce signal loss, and re-evaluating the criteria for rejecting traces is vital to achieve broader clinical implementation of NIFECG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.