Manipulación fetal para facilitar las pruebas de bienestar fetal
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003396.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 07 diciembre 2013see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
KH Tan drafted and produced the protocol. KH Tan, and A Sabapathy independently drafted and discussed the initial review together. KH Tan coordinated the discussion and the final review.
In the 2013 update, KH Tan, A Sabapathy and X Wei independently reviewed the new studies, discussed and finalised the review.
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Professor James Neilson who helped to initiate and conceive this review.
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2013 Dec 07 | Fetal manipulation for facilitating tests of fetal wellbeing | Review | Kelvin H Tan, Antoinette Sabapathy, Xing Wei | |
| 2001 Oct 23 | Fetal manipulation for facilitating tests of fetal wellbeing | Review | Kelvin H Tan, Antoinette Sabapathy | |
Differences between protocol and review
Methods updated to current Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group standards (2013).
Notes
Update in November 2003: included new study by Visser 1983.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Female; Humans; Pregnancy;
PICO
.'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Comparison 1 Manual fetal manipulation versus no or mock stimulation, Outcome 1 Non‐reactive cardiotocography.
Comparison 1 Manual fetal manipulation versus no or mock stimulation, Outcome 5 Mean time of fetal heart rate remaining unreactive.
Comparison 2 Manual fetal manipulation versus vibroacoustic stimulation, Outcome 1 Non‐reactive cardiotocography.
Comparison 2 Manual fetal manipulation versus vibroacoustic stimulation, Outcome 2 Need for contraction‐stress test.
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Non‐reactive cardiotocography Show forest plot | 2 | 2350 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.31 [0.02, 6.20] |
| 2 Perinatal deaths | 0 | 0 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 Maternal satisfaction | 0 | 0 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 Maternal anxiety | 0 | 0 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Mean time of fetal heart rate remaining unreactive Show forest plot | 2 | 560 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.29 [‐9.61, 5.03] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Non‐reactive cardiotocography Show forest plot | 1 | 300 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.47 [0.83, 2.61] |
| 2 Need for contraction‐stress test Show forest plot | 1 | 300 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 2.67 [0.72, 9.86] |
