↓ Skip to main content

Electrocardiography versus photoplethysmography in assessment of maternal heart rate variability during labor

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Electrocardiography versus photoplethysmography in assessment of maternal heart rate variability during labor
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2787-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hernâni Gonçalves, Paula Pinto, Manuela Silva, Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, João Bernardes

Abstract

Evaluation of maternal heart rate (MHR) variability provides useful information on the maternal-fetal clinical state. Electrocardiography (ECG) is the most accurate method to monitor MHR but it may not always be available, and pulse oximetry using photoplethysmography (PPG) can be an alternative. In this study we compared ECG and PPG signals, obtained with conventional fetal monitors, to evaluate signal loss, MHR variability indices, and the ability of the latter to predict fetal acidemia and operative delivery. Both signals were simultaneously acquired in 51 term pregnancies during the last 2 h of labor (H1 and H2). Linear time- and frequency-domain, and nonlinear MHR variability indices were estimated, and the dataset was divided into normal and acidemic cases, as well as into normal and operative deliveries. Differences between ECG and PPG signals were assessed using non-parametric confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, correlation coefficient and a measure of disagreement. Prediction of fetal acidemia and operative delivery was assessed using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auROC). Signal loss was higher with ECG during the first segments of H1, and higher with PPG in the last segment of H2, and it increased in both signals with labour progression. MHR variability indices were significantly different when acquired with ECG and PPG signals, with low correlation coefficients and high disagreement for entropy and fast oscillation-based indices, and low disagreement for the mean MHR and slow oscillation-based indices. However, both acquisition modes evidenced significant differences between H1 and H2 and comparable auROC values were obtained in the detection of fetal acidemia and operative vaginal delivery. Although PPG captures the faster oscillations of the MHR signal less well than ECG and is prone to have higher signal loss in the last 10-min preceding delivery, it can be considered an alternative for MHR monitoring during labor, with adaptation of cut-off values for MHR variability indices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 18%
Psychology 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Computer Science 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,162
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,878
of 355,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#119
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 355,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.