ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Remote home cardiotocography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Teleultrasound in obstetrics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiotocography (CTG) is a common investigative modality in obstetrics to evaluate the fetal condition. Advancements in digital technology has enabled the innovation of CTG monitoring for usage in the home setting. This review aims to comprehensively examine the current evidence on the effectiveness and applicability of home antenatal CTG monitoring. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched from inception to June 2025. Primary studies examining home antenatal CTG were included. For randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the joint primary outcomes were perinatal mortality and emergency caesarean section. For observational studies, the feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, qualitative and economic burden of home CTG were evaluated. RCTs were eligible for meta-analysis using risk ratio or mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals. Included observational studies were narratively described due to significant methodological heterogeneity. 39 studies (28 observational, seven RCTs and four qualitative studies), comprising of 7240 participants were included. Home antenatal CTG monitoring was non-inferior to conventional care across all meta-analysed maternal, perinatal and healthcare usage outcomes. GRADE assessments were low/very low quality of evidence. Home CTG monitoring was feasible in several settings and remote interpretation was graded as moderate to excellent. Transmission failures were frequently low but commonly occurred due to infrastructure and/or equipment errors. Remote CTG monitoring demonstrated comparative capabilities to conventional CTG with respect to coincidence and beat-to-beat variability. Overall acceptability ratings were high for patient and providers. Often implementation costs were high but accrued back by non-fixed savings when compared against routine care. High-quality studies were underrepresented, particularly when assessing service-led and safety outcomes. Home antenatal CTG monitoring demonstrates noninferiority to conventional care across several outcomes, representing a promising avenue for antenatal management However, current evidence is of low quality and additional high-quality evidence with sufficient methodological detail and standardised outcome assessment is required prior to making definitive recommendations.
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.