↓ Skip to main content

Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006947.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jannet JH Bakker, Petra F Janssen, Karlijn van Halem, Birgit Y van der Goes, Dimitri NM Papatsonis, Joris AM van der Post, Ben Willem J Mol

Abstract

Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child. To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013) and PubMed (1966 to 6 April 2013). We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88). This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Other 8 7%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 21 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 December 2012.
All research outputs
#11,143,423
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,964
of 334,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 334,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.