↓ Skip to main content

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004075.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E East, Lisa Begg, Paul B Colditz, Rosalind Lau

Abstract

Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) may contribute to the evaluation of fetal well-being during labour. To compare the effectiveness and safety of FPO with conventional surveillance techniques, using the results of randomised controlled trials. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (31 July 2004) and conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1994 to July 2004), EMBASE (1994 to July 2004) and Current Contents (1994 to July 2004). All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared maternal and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes when FPO was used in labour, with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, compared with using cardiotocography (CTG) alone. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. We sought additional information from the investigators of the one reported trial. One published RCT (comparing FPO and CTG with CTG alone) was included; and two ongoing RCTs were identified. The single included RCT reported on 1010 cases. Unpublished pilot data were available for some outcomes to give a total of 1190 cases. There was no difference in the overall caesarean section rate between the two groups (relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.37). There were less caesarean sections for nonreassuring fetal status in the FPO plus CTG group compared with the CTG only group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72). The only reported neonatal seizure occurred in the CTG only group (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.01 to 7.08). Use of FPO with CTG decreased operative delivery (caesarean section, forceps, vacuum) for nonreassuring fetal status (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93) compared with CTG alone. No differences were seen for overall operative deliveries, endometritis, intrapartum or postpartum haemorrhage, uterine rupture, low Apgar scores, umbilical arterial pH or base excess, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or fetal/neonatal death. The one published RCT reported that FPO decreased the caesarean section rate and operative delivery rates for nonreassuring fetal status, without adversely affecting maternal or fetal/neonatal outcomes. However, no difference was seen in the overall caesarean section (CS) or operative delivery rates because more CS were performed for dystocia in the FPO group. Further RCTs may address dystocia in labours monitored with FPO, maternal satisfaction with fetal monitoring and labour, long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of infants who exhibited nonreassuring fetal status in labour and costs of FPO.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Other 15 8%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 34 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Psychology 11 6%
Engineering 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 43 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#8,878,618
of 16,882,949 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,820
of 11,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,585
of 216,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#198
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,882,949 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 216,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.