Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor

Thacker, SB, Stroup, D, Chang, M·2001·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been widely adopted. There is debate about its overall effectiveness as well as the relative merits of routine application versus use for high-risk pregnancies only. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of routine continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour compared with intermittent auscultation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, Medline (1966 to 1994), and reference list of relevant articles. We also contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing routine continuous electronic fetal monitoring with intermittent auscultation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer, and their accuracy was confirmed independently by a second person. A single reviewer assessed study quality based on criteria developed by others for randomised controlled trials. Data reported from similar studies were used to calculate a combined risk estimate for each of eight outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies involving 18,561 women and their 18,695 infants were included. The trials were of variable quality. A statistically significant decrease was associated with routine continuous EFM for neonatal seizures (relative risk (RR) = 0. 51, confidence interval (CI) = 0.32,0.82). The protective effect for neonatal seizures was only evident in studies with high-quality scores. No significant differences were observed in 1-minute Apgar scores below 4, 1-minute Apgar scores below 7, rate of admissions to neonatal intensive care units, and perinatal death. An increase associated with the use of EFM was observed in the rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.41, CI = 1.23,1.61) and operative vaginal delivery (RR = 1.20, CI = 1.11,1.30). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The only clinically significant benefit from the use of routine continuous EFM was in the reduction of neonatal seizures. In view of the increase in cesarean and operative vaginal deliveries, the long-term benefit of this reduction must be evaluated in the decision reached jointly by the pregnant woman and her clinician to use continuous EFM or intermittent auscultation during labor.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000063This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Thacker, S., Stroup, D., & Chang, M.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2001-04-23
Issue
2
Pages
CD000063-CD000063
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098020556
Cited by
222
References
1
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000063
The paper
Thacker, S., Stroup, D., & Chang, M. (2001). Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000063

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.