Why the study?
Does continuous fetal heart rate monitoring using the Moyo device reduce the time to delivery after abnormal FHR detection and improve neonatal outcomes in laboring women?
Population
9,778 women admitted to the labor unit in the first stage of labor or not yet in labor across 7 public…
Comparison
Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring using the… vs Intermittent FHR monitoring using the Moyo device.
Design
Cohort, Not randomized
Follow-up
Until delivery and early neonatal period
Key result
Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring with Moyo significantly reduced the time from first abnormal fetal heart rate detection to delivery by 66.5 minutes compared to intermittent monitoring.
Authors
Loading...
Non-significant reduction in time to abnormal FHR detection; does not support adoption and leaves efficacy open for further trials.
Observational (n=9,778)
Yes
Does continuous fetal heart rate monitoring using the Moyo device reduce the time to delivery after abnormal FHR detection and improve neonatal outcomes in laboring women?
Mean Difference: -66.5 (95% CI -106.2–-26.8)
Absolute Event Rate: 73% vs 132.2%
p-value: p=0.001
Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring with a portable device reduces the time to delivery following abnormal FHR detection and decreases the need for neonatal resuscitation compared to intermittent monitoring.
Basnet et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Labor (n=9,778). Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring using Moyo vs. Intermittent fetal heart rate monitoring using Moyo was evaluated on Time from first abnormal fetal heart rate detection to delivery (adj.β -66.5 min, 95% CI -106.2 to -26.8, p=0.001). Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring with Moyo significantly reduced the time from first abnormal fetal heart rate detection to delivery by 66.5 minutes compared to intermittent monitoring.