↓ Skip to main content

Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
96 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
547 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
Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006066.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zarko Alfirevic, Gillian ML Gyte, Anna Cuthbert, Declan Devane

Abstract

Cardiotocography (CTG) records changes in the fetal heart rate and their temporal relationship to uterine contractions. The aim is to identify babies who may be short of oxygen (hypoxic) to guide additional assessments of fetal wellbeing, or determine if the baby needs to be delivered by caesarean section or instrumental vaginal birth. This is an update of a review previously published in 2013, 2006 and 2001. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of continuous cardiotocography when used as a method to monitor fetal wellbeing during labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of continuous cardiotocography (with and without fetal blood sampling) with no fetal monitoring, intermittent auscultation intermittent cardiotocography. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, quality and extracted data from included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We included 13 trials involving over 37,000 women. No new studies were included in this update.One trial (4044 women) compared continuous CTG with intermittent CTG, all other trials compared continuous CTG with intermittent auscultation. No data were found comparing no fetal monitoring with continuous CTG. Overall, methodological quality was mixed. All included studies were at high risk of performance bias, unclear or high risk of detection bias, and unclear risk of reporting bias. Only two trials were assessed at high methodological quality.Compared with intermittent auscultation, continuous cardiotocography showed no significant improvement in overall perinatal death rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.23, N = 33,513, 11 trials, low quality evidence), but was associated with halving neonatal seizure rates (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, N = 32,386, 9 trials, moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in cerebral palsy rates (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63, N = 13,252, 2 trials, low quality evidence). There was an increase in caesarean sections associated with continuous CTG (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07, N = 18,861, 11 trials, low quality evidence). Women were also more likely to have instrumental vaginal births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.33, N = 18,615, 10 trials, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of cord blood acidosis (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.11, N = 2494, 2 trials, very low quality evidence) or use of any pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, N = 1677, 3 trials, low quality evidence).Compared with intermittent CTG, continuous CTG made no difference to caesarean section rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.97, N = 4044, 1 trial) or instrumental births (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.46, N = 4044, 1 trial). Less cord blood acidosis was observed in women who had intermittent CTG, however, this result could have been due to chance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.14, N = 4044, 1 trial).Data for low risk, high risk, preterm pregnancy and high-quality trials subgroups were consistent with overall results. Access to fetal blood sampling did not appear to influence differences in neonatal seizures or other outcomes.Evidence was assessed using GRADE. Most outcomes were graded as low quality evidence (rates of perinatal death, cerebral palsy, caesarean section, instrumental vaginal births, and any pharmacological analgesia), and downgraded for limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision of results. The remaining outcomes were downgraded to moderate quality (neonatal seizures) and very low quality (cord blood acidosis) due to similar concerns over limitations in design, inconsistency and imprecision. CTG during labour is associated with reduced rates of neonatal seizures, but no clear differences in cerebral palsy, infant mortality or other standard measures of neonatal wellbeing. However, continuous CTG was associated with an increase in caesarean sections and instrumental vaginal births. The challenge is how best to convey these results to women to enable them to make an informed decision without compromising the normality of labour.The question remains as to whether future randomised trials should measure efficacy (the intrinsic value of continuous CTG in trying to prevent adverse neonatal outcomes under optimal clinical conditions) or effectiveness (the effect of this technique in routine clinical practice).Along with the need for further investigations into long-term effects of operative births for women and babies, much remains to be learned about the causation and possible links between antenatal or intrapartum events, neonatal seizures and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, whilst considering changes in clinical practice over the intervening years (one-to-one-support during labour, caesarean section rates). The large number of babies randomised to the trials in this review have now reached adulthood and could potentially provide a unique opportunity to clarify if a reduction in neonatal seizures is something inconsequential that should not greatly influence women's and clinicians' choices, or if seizure reduction leads to long-term benefits for babies. Defining meaningful neurological and behavioural outcomes that could be measured in large cohorts of young adults poses huge challenges. However, it is important to collect data from these women and babies while medical records still exist, where possible describe women's mobility and positions during labour and birth, and clarify if these might impact on outcomes. Research should also address the possible contribution of the supine position to adverse outcomes for babies, and assess whether the use of mobility and positions can further reduce the low incidence of neonatal seizures and improve psychological outcomes for women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 547 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 545 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 18%
Student > Bachelor 89 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 12%
Researcher 61 11%
Student > Postgraduate 40 7%
Other 120 22%
Unknown 75 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 215 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 93 17%
Psychology 24 4%
Engineering 18 3%
Social Sciences 16 3%
Other 72 13%
Unknown 109 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 107. 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 22 June 2020.
All research outputs
#185,654
of 15,349,330 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#391
of 11,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,045
of 355,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,349,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. 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 355,647 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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 93% of its contemporaries.