↓ Skip to main content

Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006174.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E East, Leo R Leader, Penelope Sheehan, Naomi E Henshall, Paul B Colditz, Rosalind Lau

Abstract

Fetal scalp blood sampling for lactate estimation may be considered following identification of an abnormal or non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern. The smaller volume of blood required for this test, compared with the more traditional pH estimation, may improve sampling rates. The appropriate use of this practice mandates systematic review of its safety and clinical effectiveness prior to widespread introduction. To evaluate the effectiveness and risks of fetal scalp lactate sampling in the assessment of fetal well-being during labour, compared with no testing or alternative testing. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015). All published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared fetal scalp lactate testing with no testing or alternative testing to evaluate fetal status in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocograph during labour. We used the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently assessed the studies. The search identified two completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two ongoing trials. The two published RCTs considered outcomes for 3348 mother-baby pairs allocated to either lactate or pH estimation of fetal blood samples when clinically indicated in labour. Overall, the published RCTs were of low or unclear risk of bias. There was a high risk of performance bias, because it would not have been feasible to blind clinicians or participants.No statistically significant between-group differences were found for neonatal encephalopathy (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 3.09, one study, 2992 infants) or death. No studies reported neonatal seizures. We had planned to report death with other morbidities, for example, neonatal encephalopathy; however, the data were not available in a format suitable for this, therefore death due to congenital abnormality was considered alone. The three reported neonatal deaths occurred in babies with diaphragmatic hernias (n = 2) or congenital cardiac fibrosis (n = 1). All three babies had been randomised to the pH group and were not acidaemic at birth.There were no statistically significant differences for any of the pre-specified secondary fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes for which data were available. This included low Apgar score at five minutes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.68, two studies, 3319 infants) and admission to neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25, one study, 2992 infants), or metabolic acidaemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36, one study, 2675 infants) considered within the studies, either overall or where data were available for those where fetal blood sampling had occurred within 60 minutes of delivery.Similar proportions of fetuses underwent additional tests to further evaluate well-being during labour, including scalp pH if in the lactate group or scalp lactate if in the pH group (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.30, two studies, 3333 infants;Tau² 1.00, I² = 58%). Fetal blood sampling attempts for lactate and pH estimation were successful in 98.7% and 79.4% of procedures respectively in the one study that reported this outcome.There were no significant between-group differences in mode of birth or operative birth for non-reassuring fetal status, either for all women, or within the group where the fetal blood sample had been taken within 60 minutes of delivery (for example, caesarean section for all enrolled, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22, two studies, 3319 women; operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status for all enrolled RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11, one study, 2992 women).Neither study reported on adverse effects of fetal scalp lacerations or maternal anxiety. When further testing to assess fetal well-being in labour is indicated, fetal scalp blood lactate estimation is more likely to be successfully undertaken than pH estimation. Further studies may consider subgroup analysis by gestational age, the stage of labour and sampling within a prolonged second stage of labour. Additionally, we await the findings from the ongoing studies that compare allocation to no fetal blood sample with sampling for lactate and address longer-term neonatal outcomes, maternal satisfaction with intrapartum fetal monitoring and an economic analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 186 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 15%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Unspecified 21 11%
Other 55 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 55%
Unspecified 29 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Psychology 11 6%
Engineering 10 5%
Other 19 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#914,191
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,919
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,191
of 223,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 223,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.