↓ Skip to main content

Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007863.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grivell, Rosalie M, Alfirevic, Zarko, Gyte, Gillian Ml, Devane, Declan, Gyte, Gillian ML

Abstract

Cardiotocography (CTG) is a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate obtained via an ultrasound transducer placed on the mother's abdomen. CTG is widely used in pregnancy as a method of assessing fetal well-being, predominantly in pregnancies with increased risk of complications. To assess the effectiveness of antenatal CTG (both traditional and computerised assessments) in improving outcomes for mothers and babies during and after pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (26 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared traditional antenatal CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; computerised CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; and computerised CTG with traditional CTG. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications.Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627, low quality evidence) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference identified for secondary outcomes related to Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.88, one trial, N = 396, very low quality evidence); or admission to neonatal special care units or neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39, two trials, N = 883, low quality evidence), nor in the other secondary outcomes that were assessed.There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG.Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women, moderate quality evidence). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59, low quality evidence), Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.74, two studies, N = 469, very low quality evidence) or in secondary outcomes. There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 155 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 20%
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Unspecified 15 9%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 19 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#579,906
of 12,275,560 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,592
of 8,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,490
of 244,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,275,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 244,116 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.