Key result
. No new claims.
Why the study?
Conventional fetal heart rate monitoring during labor restricts maternal movement and carries a risk of supine hypotension.
Does a flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor provide comparable fetal heart rate and uterine contraction measurements to a conventional Doppler monitor in women with singleton pregnancies during labor?
Population
106 women with singleton pregnancies who gave birth at Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital
Comparison
Flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor vs conventional Doppler fetal heart rate monitor
Design
Quasi-experimental study based on convenience sampling
Authors
Loading...
Comparable fetal heart rate readings with flexible devices; leaves open equivalence before routine clinical adoption.
Observational (n=106)
No
Does a flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor provide comparable fetal heart rate and uterine contraction measurements to a conventional Doppler monitor in women with singleton pregnancies during labor?
Effect estimate: Median difference -1.0 bpm (95% CI -1.5 to 0.0)
Absolute Event Rate: 142.86% vs 143.66%
p-value: p=0.0826
A flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor provides comparable fetal heart rate measurements to conventional Doppler monitoring, though agreement for uterine contraction frequency and intensity is poor.
Cai et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Labor in singleton pregnancies (n=106). Flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor vs. Conventional Doppler fetal heart rate monitor was evaluated on Fetal heart rate (Median difference -1.0 bpm, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.0, p=0.0826). The flexible wearable fetal-maternal heart rate monitor showed no significant difference in fetal heart rate measurement compared to conventional monitoring (142.86 vs 143.66 bpm, P=0.0826), but agreement was poor for uterine contraction intensity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: