Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr 18;2012(4):CD009148.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009148.pub2.

Management of reported decreased fetal movements for improving pregnancy outcomes

G Justus Hofmeyr  1 , Natalia Novikova
Affiliations

Management of reported decreased fetal movements for improving pregnancy outcomes

G Justus Hofmeyr et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical observations indicate that mothers commonly perceive a reduction in, or absence of, the baby's movements for some days preceding a baby's death. For this reason, fetal movement monitoring is advised by caregivers and used spontaneously by mothers to assess the baby's well-being. However, it is possible that the harmful effects of interventions may outweigh the benefits of such testing. Evidence of effectiveness of fetal movement screening to improve outcomes is limited, though indirect evidence suggests a potential benefit. A secondary question is whether any specific management response to perceived decreased fetal movements (DFM) improves clinical outcome.

Objectives: To determine, from the best available evidence, the effectiveness of various management strategies for DFM.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012) and bibliographies of included studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised clinical trials comparing various management strategies for DFM, including delivery, expectant management, cardiotocography (visual and computerised), ultrasound examination including Doppler ultrasound, and fetal arousal tests (cardiotocographic or clinical).

Data collection and analysis: Two assessors evaluated potentially eligible trials for inclusion, and extracted data onto a purpose-designed form. Where DFM was one among a number of inclusion criteria for the trial, we contacted trial authors for information on outcomes specific to the DFM subgroups.

Main results: No randomised trials of management of DFM were found. Of 13 randomised trials of management strategies for pregnancies with risk factors for fetal compromise including DFM, data on the DFM subgroups could only be provided by the authors of one trial. The numbers were too small for meaningful analysis (there were 28 cases of DFM).

Authors' conclusions: There are insufficient data from randomised trials to guide practice regarding the management of DFM. Based on the results of other systematic reviews of management strategies for women whose babies are thought to be at risk of compromise for various reasons, the following strategies show promise and may be prioritised for further research: Doppler ultrasound studies, computerised cardiotocography, and fetal arousal to facilitate cardiotocography.For settings where electronic fetal assessment methods are not available, clinical fetal arousal tests should be investigated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

G Justus Hofmeyr was an author of an included study (Hofmeyr 1991a).

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 1 Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 4 Components of severe perinatal morbidity.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 5 Labour induction.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 6 Maternal death or severe maternal morbidity.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 7 Components of severe maternal morbidity.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 VAS/mFBP versus mFBP, Outcome 8 Maternal hospital admission > 7 days.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009148

References

References to studies included in this review

Bracero 1999 {published data only}
    1. Bracero LA, Morgan S, Byrne DW. Comparison of visual and computerized interpretation of nonstress test results in a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(5 Pt 1):1254‐8. - PubMed
Burke 1992 {published data only}
    1. Burke G, Stuart B, Crowley P, Ni Scanaill S, Drumm J. Does Doppler ultrasound alter the management of high‐risk pregnancy?. Care Concern and Cure in Perinatal Medicine. 13th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine; 1992 May; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Parthenon, 1992:597‐604.
    1. Burke G, Stuart B, Crowley P, Ni Scanaill S, Drumm J. Does Doppler ultrasound alter the management of high‐risk pregnancy?. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1992;20(Suppl 1):266.
Hofmeyr 1991 {published data only}
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Pattinson R, Buckley D, Jennings J, Redman CWG. Umbilical artery resistance index as a screening test for fetal well‐being. II. Randomized feasibility study. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1991;78:359‐62. - PubMed
Jamal 2007 {published data only}
    1. Jamal A. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile vs the modified biophysical in the management of high‐risk pregnancies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005; Vol. 26:376‐471.
    1. Jamal A, Marsoosi V, Eslamian L, Noori K. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus modified biophysical profile in the management of high risk pregnancies. Acta Medica Iranica 2007;45(3):204‐8.
Johnstone 1993 {published data only}
    1. Johnstone FD, Prescott R, Hoskins P, Greer IA, McGlew T, Compton M. The effect of introduction of umbilical Doppler recordings to obstetric practice. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;100:733‐41. - PubMed
Manning 1984 {published data only}
    1. Manning FA, Lange IR, Morrison I, Harman CR. Fetal biophysical profile score and the nonstress test: a comparative trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1984;64:326‐31. - PubMed
Newnham 1990 {published data only}
    1. Newnham JP, Burns SE, Roberman BD. Effect of vibratory acoustic stimulation on the duration of fetal heart rate monitoring tests. American Journal of Perinatology 1990;7:232‐4. - PubMed
Sleutel 1990 {published data only}
    1. Sleutel MR. Vibroacoustic stimulation and fetal heart rate in nonstress tests. Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 1990;19(3):199‐204. - PubMed
Smith 1986 {published data only}
    1. Smith CV, Phelan JP, Platt LD, Broussard P, Paul RH. Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. II. A randomized clinical comparison with the nonstress test. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1986;155:131‐4. - PubMed
Sood 2007 {published data only}
    1. Sood AK. Vibroacoustic stimulation and modified fetal biophysical profile in high risk pregnancy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 2007;57(1):27‐36.
Tongsong 1994 {published data only}
    1. Tongsong T, Piyamongkol W. Comparison of the acoustic stimulation test with nonstress test. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1994;39:17‐20. - PubMed
Trungtawatchai 1999 {published data only}
    1. Trungtawatchai S, Chanpraparp P. Comparison of the nonstress test (NST) and NST with manual stimulation test (MST). Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;11(4):273.
Williams 2003 {published data only}
    1. Williams KP, Farquharson DF, Bebbington M, Dansereau J, Galerneau F, Wilson RD, et al. Screening for fetal well‐being in a high‐risk pregnant population comparing the nonstress test with umbilical artery doppler velocimetry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;188(5):1366‐71. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Eglinton 1984 {published data only}
    1. Eglinton GS, Paul RH, Broussard PM, Walla CA, Platt LD. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing. XI. Stimulation with orange juice. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1984;150:97‐9. - PubMed
Platt 1985 {published data only}
    1. Platt LD, Walla CA, Paul RH, Trujillo ME, Loesser CV, Jacobs ND, et al. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile vs the nonstress test in the management of high‐risk pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1985;153:624‐33. - PubMed
Richardson 1983 {published data only}
    1. Richardson B, Briggs ML, Toomey C, Burry KJ, O'Grady JP. The effect of maternal glucose administration on the specificity of the nonstress test. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1983;145:141‐6. - PubMed

Additional references

Alfirevic 2010
    1. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GML. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high‐risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007529.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Flenady 2009
    1. Flenady V, MacPhail J, Gardener G, Chadha Y, Mahomed K, Heazell A, et al. Detection and management of decreased fetal movements in Australia and New Zealand: a survey of obstetric practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;49(4):358‐63. - PubMed
Frøen 2001
    1. Frøen JF, Arnestad M, Frey K, Vege Å, Saugstad OD, Stray‐Pedersen B. Risk factors for sudden intrauterine unexplained death: epidemiologic characteristics of singleton cases in Oslo, Norway, 1986–1995. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;184:694‐702. - PubMed
Frøen 2008
    1. Frøen JF, Tveit JV, Saastad E, Børdahl P, Stray‐Pedersen B, Heazell AE, et al. Management of decreased fetal movements. Seminars in Perinatalogy 2008;32:307‐11. - PubMed
Grivell 2010
    1. Grivell RM, Alfirevic Z, Gyte GML, Devane D. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007863.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Harbord 2006
    1. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2006;25(20):3443‐57. - PubMed
Heazell 2008a
    1. Heazell AE, Frøen JF. Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008;28:147‐54. - PubMed
Heazell 2008b
    1. Heazell AE, Green M, Wright C, Flenady V, Frøen JF. Midwives' and obstetricians' knowledge and management of women presenting with decreased fetal movements. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2008;87(3):331‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Lalor 2008
    1. Lalor JG, Fawole B, Alfirevic Z, Devane D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000038.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Martin 2008
    1. Martin CB Jr. Normal fetal physiology and behavior, and adaptive responses with hypoxemia. Seminars in Perinatology 2008;32(4):239‐42. - PubMed
O'Sullivan 2009
    1. O'Sullivan PO, Stephen G, Martindale E, Heazell AEP. Predicting poor perinatal outcome in women who present with decreased fetal movements. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;29:705‐10. - PubMed
Preston 2010
    1. Preston S, Mahomed K, Chadha Y, Flenady V, Gardener G, MacPhail J, et al. . Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Women who Report Decreased Fetal Movements. Brisbane: The Australian and New Zealand Stillbirth Alliance, 2010 July.
RCOG 2011
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Reduced Fetal Movements. RCOG Green‐top Guideline No. 57. http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens‐health/clinical‐guidance/reduced‐fetal‐mov... (accessed February 2012).
RevMan 2011 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Sinha 2007
    1. Sinha D, Sharma A, Nallaswamy V, Jayagopal N, Bhatti N. Obstetric outcome in women complaining of reduced fetal movements. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007;27:41‐3. - PubMed
Skornick‐Rapaport 2010
    1. Skornick‐Rapaport A, Maslovitz S, Kupferminc M, Lessing JB, Many A. Proposed management for reduced fetal movements: five years' experience in one medical center. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 2010 Sep 9 [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
Tan 2001
    1. Tan KH, Smyth RMD. Fetal vibroacoustic stimulation for facilitation of tests of fetal well‐being. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002963] - DOI - PubMed
Tuffnell 1991
    1. Tuffnell DJ, Cartmill RS, Lilford RJ. Fetal movements; factors affecting their perception. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1991;39(3):165‐7. - PubMed
Tveit 2009
    1. Tveit JV, Saastad E, Stray‐Pedersen B, Børdahl PE, Flenady V, Fretts R, et al. Reduction of late stillbirth with the introduction of fetal movement information and guidelines ‐ a clinical quality improvement. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2009;9:32. - PMC - PubMed
Unterscheider 2010
    1. Unterscheider J, Horgan RP, Greene RA, Higgins JR. The management of reduced fetal movements in an uncomplicated pregnancy at term: results from an anonymous national online survey in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010;30(6):578‐82. - PubMed
Warrander 2011
    1. Warrander LK, Heazell AE. Identifying placental dysfunction in women with reduced fetal movements can be used to predict patients at increased risk of pregnancy complications. Medical Hypotheses 2011;76(1):17‐20. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources