↓ Skip to main content

Vibroacoustic stimulation for fetal assessment in labour in the presence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate trace

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Vibroacoustic stimulation for fetal assessment in labour in the presence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate trace
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004664.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E East, Rebecca MD Smyth, Leo R Leader, Naomi E Henshall, Paul B Colditz, Rosalind Lau, Kelvin H Tan

Abstract

Fetal vibroacoustic stimulation is a simple, non-invasive technique where a device is placed on the maternal abdomen over the region of the fetal head and sound is emitted at a predetermined level for several seconds. It is hypothesized that the resultant startle reflex in the fetus and subsequent fetal heart rate acceleration or transient tachycardia following vibroacoustic stimulation provide reassurance of fetal well-being. This technique has been proposed as a tool to assess fetal well-being in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocographic trace during the first and second stages of labour. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of vibroacoustic stimulation in the assessment of fetal well-being during labour, compared with mock or no stimulation for women with a singleton pregnancy exhibiting a non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 September 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (January 1966 to January 2005) and reference lists of all retrieved articles. We sought unpublished trials and abstracts submitted to major international congresses and contacted expert informants. All published and unpublished randomised trials that compared maternal and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes when vibroacoustic stimulation was used to evaluate fetal status in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocographic trace during labour, compared with mock or no stimulation. Two independent review authors identified potential studies from the literature search and assessed them for methodological quality and appropriateness of inclusion, using a data extraction form. Attempts to contact study authors for additional information were unsuccessful. The search strategies yielded six studies for consideration of inclusion. However, none of these studies fulfilled the requirements for inclusion in this review. There are currently no randomised controlled trials that address the safety and efficacy of vibroacoustic stimulation used to assess fetal well-being in labour in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocographic trace. Although vibroacoustic stimulation has been proposed as a simple, non-invasive tool for assessment of fetal well-being, there is insufficient evidence from randomised trials on which to base recommendations for use of vibroacoustic stimulation in the evaluation of fetal well-being in labour in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocographic trace.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Unspecified 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 51%
Unspecified 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 9 15%

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 10 December 2013.
All research outputs
#3,639,781
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,120
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,668
of 234,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 234,427 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.