A recent study in Turkey compared wireless and wired CTG monitoring in women during labor. It found no significant difference in comfort but showed reduced pain and higher birth satisfaction with wireless monitoring. Labour duration was shorter with wireless use. It’s not final proof – but it is a great first start in understanding whether wireless CTGs live up to the hype!
The idea that only CTGs give us the “real” heart rate pops up from time to time. A recent study found high rates of data dropout in CTG readings, with the software built into the CTG machine making up data to fill the gaps. Babies who had lots of made up data were more likely to be born in poor condition. CTGs don’t show the “real” heart rate all of time!
A Danish study reviewed fetal heart rate monitoring practices among low-risk women, revealing that while 50% received intermittent auscultation, many still underwent continuous CTG monitoring. The researchers overlooked that women, not guidelines, choose monitoring methods. This raises ethical concerns about autonomy in fetal monitoring decisions.
One of the fundamental requirements for any form of fetal heart rate monitoring is that the patterns that are detected MEAN something useful. In this week’s blog post I share yet another piece of research that should undermine blind faith in fetal monitoring practices.
In recent years, there’s been increased awareness about the possibility of confusion between maternal and fetal heart rates during CTG monitoring. This new research indicates that adding maternal heart rate data to the CTG might be having a negative impact on CTG interpretation. Read the details on the blog – including my suggestions for how to solve the problem.
A study by Roth et al. (2026) examined signal loss in external cardiotocography (CTG) during labor, revealing significant gaps in heart rate recordings. Findings indicated no clear correlation between these gaps and adverse outcomes for babies, challenging common beliefs about continuous monitoring.
Intermittent auscultation is a logical, evidence-based option for many women. But many women struggle to access it. New research provides insights about why that is the case in the UK – and offers some fairly easy to change possibilities to remove barriers.
There are some major limitations of continuous CTG monitoring during labour. Recent studies exploring fetal heart rate and contraction patterns fail to identify patterns that reliably predict problems. Maybe we need to stop and head in a different direction altogether…
Central fetal monitoring systems, adopted globally, consolidate data on fetal heart rates and uterine contractions for real-time display. A Swedish study compared outcomes during traditional and central monitoring. No significant differences in metabolic acidosis or neonatal outcomes were found. Instrumental birth rates fell, likely due to revised guidelines, questioning the investment in central monitoring without definitive improvements.
Postpartum bleeding poses significant health risks. The WOMAN-2 trial found higher postpartum haemorrhage rates with episiotomy. CTG use could be driving up the rate of heavy bleeding – but what does the research say?
Comment BLOG and I’ll send you a link so you can find out.
