↓ Skip to main content

Admission cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart in low‐risk pregnancy during evaluation for possible labour admission – a multicentre randomised trial: the ADCAR trial

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
61 X users
facebook
15 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Admission cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart in low‐risk pregnancy during evaluation for possible labour admission – a multicentre randomised trial: the ADCAR trial
Published in
British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, September 2018
DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.15448
Pubmed ID
Authors

V Smith, C Begley, J Newell, S Higgins, DJ Murphy, MJ White, JJ Morrison, S Canny, D O'Donovan, D Devane

Abstract

To assess the effect of admission cardiotocography (ACTG) versus intermittent auscultation (IA) of the fetal heart (FH) in low-risk pregnancy during assessment for possible labour on caesarean section rates. A parallel multicentre randomised trial. Three maternity units in the Republic of Ireland. Healthy, low-risk pregnant women, at term and ≥ 18 years old, who provided written informed consent. Women were randomised to receive IA of the FH or 20 minutes ACTG on admission for possible labour onset, using remote telephone randomisation. Both groups received IA during labour, with conversion to continuous CTG as clinically indicated. Caesarean section (primary outcome), obstetric interventions (e.g. continuous CTG during labour, fetal blood sampling, augmentation of labour) and neonatal morbidity (e.g. metabolic acidosis, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, neonatal death). Based on 3034 women (1513 and 1521 randomised to IA and ACTG, respectively), there was no statistical difference between the groups in caesarean section [130 (8.6%) and 105 (6.9%) for IA and ACTG groups, respectively; relative risk (RR) 1.24; 95% CI 0.97-1.58], or in any other outcome except for use of continuous CTG during labour, which was lower in the IA group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.93). Our study demonstrates no differences in obstetric or neonatal outcomes between IA and ACTG for women with possible labour onset, other than an increased risk for continuous CTG in women receiving ACTG. No differences in outcomes between intermittent auscultation and admission cardiotocography for women with possible labour onset.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 43 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 44 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#842,157
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#254
of 6,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,104
of 351,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#4
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 351,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.