Intermittent fetal heart rate monitoring using a fetoscope or hand held Doppler in rural Tanzania: a randomized controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal mortality is a global challenge, with an estimated 1.3 million intrapartum stillbirths in 2015. The majority of these were found in low resource settings with limited options to intrapartum fetal heart monitoring devices. This trial compared frequency of abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) detection and adverse perinatal outcomes (i.e. fresh stillbirths, 24-h neonatal deaths, admission to neonatal care unit) among women intermittently assessed by Doppler or fetoscope in a rural low-resource setting. METHODS: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial conducted at Haydom Lutheran Hospital from March 2013 through August 2015. Inclusion criteria were; women in labor, singleton, cephalic presentation, normal FHR on admission (120-160 beats/minute), and cervical dilatation ≤7 cm. Verbal consent was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 2684 women were recruited, 1309 in the Doppler and 1375 in the fetoscope arms, respectively. Abnormal FHR was detected in 55 (4.2%) vs 42 (3.1%). (RR = 1.38; 95%CI: 0.93, 2.04) in the Doppler and fetoscope arms, respectively. Bag mask ventilation was performed in 80 (6.1%) vs 82 (6.0%). (RR = 1.03; 95%CI: 0.76, 1.38) of neonates, and adverse perinatal outcome was comparable 32(2.4%) vs 35(2.5%). (RR = 0.9; 95%CI: 0.59, 1.54), in the Doppler and fetoscope arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the detection of abnormal FHR between intermittently used Doppler and fetoscope and adverse perinatal outcomes. However, FHR measurements were not performed as often as recommended by international guidelines. Conducting a randomized controlled study in rural settings with limited resources is associated with major challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered on April 2013 with registration number NCT01869582 .
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In low-resource settings, lower-complexity tools such as partographs, Pinard stethoscopes, and intermittent handheld Doppler US have been used to track fetal well-being and labor progress.
“In low-resource settings, lower-complexity tools such as partographs, Pinard stethoscopes, and intermittent handheld Doppler US have been used to track fetal well-being and labor progress (14, 34, 35).”
From Comprehensive pregnancy monitoring with a network of wireless, soft, and flexible sensors in high- and low-resource health settings (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Mdoe, P. F., Ersdal, H. L., Mduma, E. R., Perlman, J. M., Moshiro, R., Wangwe, P. T., & Kidanto, H.
- Affiliations
- Haydom Lutheran Hospital (TZ)
- Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
- Cornell University (US)
- Muhimbili National Hospital (TZ)
- Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (TZ)
- Corresponding author
- Mdoe, Paschal Francis
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
- Published
- 2018-05-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 134-134
- ISSN
- 1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5935915
- OpenAlex
- W2800874483
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 7.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Research Council of Norway (GLOBVAC) . (228203)
- Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- handheld Doppler, intrapartum fetal monitoring, stillbirth, neonatal mortality, perinatal complications, resource-limited settings, rural Tanzania, bag-mask ventilation, intrapartum care
- MeSH terms
- Heart Rate Determination, Adolescent, Adult, Apgar Score, Developing Countries, Female, Fetal Distress, Fetoscopy, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Male, Pregnancy, Tanzania, Cardiotocography, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Rural Health Services, Young Adult
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