Cited by 45Global Maternal and Child HealthMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Strategies for intrapartum foetal surveillance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Open access
Housseine, Natasha, Punt, Marieke C., Browne, Joyce L., Meguid, Tarek, Klipstein-Grobusch, Kerstin, Kwast, Barbara E., Franx, Arie, Grobbee, Diederick E. +1 more·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The majority of the five million perinatal deaths worldwide take place in low-resource settings. In contrast to high-resource settings, almost 50% of stillbirths occur intrapartum. The aim of this study was to synthesise available evidence of strategies for foetal surveillance in low-resource settings and associated neonatal and maternal outcomes, including barriers to their implementation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The review was registered with Prospero (CRD42016038679). Five databases were searched up to May 1st, 2016 for studies related to intrapartum foetal monitoring strategies and neonatal outcomes in low-resource settings. Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. The outcomes were narratively synthesised. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis (SWOT) was conducted for each monitoring technique to analyse their implementation. There were 37 studies included: five intervention and 32 observational studies. Use of the partograph improved perinatal outcomes. Intermittent auscultation with Pinard was associated with lowest rates of caesarean sections (10-15%) but with comparable perinatal outcomes to hand-held Doppler and Cardiotocography (CTG). CTG was associated with the highest rates of caesarean sections (28-34%) without proven benefits for perinatal outcome. Several tests on admission (admission tests) and adjunctive tests including foetal stimulation tests improved the accuracy of foetal heart rate monitoring in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence, the partograph is associated with improved perinatal outcomes and is recommended for use with intermittent auscultation for intrapartum monitoring in low resource settings. CTG is associated with higher caesarean section rates without proven benefits for perinatal outcomes, and should not be recommended in low-resource settings. High-quality evidence considering implementation barriers and enablers is needed to determine the optimal foetal monitoring strategy in low-resource settings.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0206295

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [57]David B, Saraswathi K. Role of admission CTG as a screening test to predict fetal outcome and mode of delivery. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2014; 5: 295– 9.
  2. [70]WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. n.d. 30070803

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Housseine, N., Punt, M. C., Browne, J. L., Meguid, T., Klipstein-Grobusch, K., Kwast, B. E., Franx, A., Grobbee, D. E., & Rijken, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • State University of Zanzibar (TZ)
Corresponding author
Housseine, Natasha
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-10-26
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
e0206295
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898340147
Cited by
45
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UMC Utrecht Global Health Support Program
  • Mnazi Mmoja Hospital
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
partograph, intermittent auscultation, cardiotocography, handheld Doppler, cesarean section rate, perinatal outcomes, stillbirth, resource-limited settings, implementation barriers, admission tests
MeSH terms
Female, Fetal Monitoring, Humans, Income, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome

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