Development of a core outcome set (COS) for studies relating to awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement: study protocol

Decreased fetal movements: Report from the International Stillbirth Alliance conference workshop

Maternal reports of decreased fetal movement (DFM) are a common reason to present to maternity care and are associated with stillbirth and other adverse outcomes. Promoting awareness of fetal movements and prompt assessment of DFM has been recommended to reduce stillbirths. However, evidence to guide clinical management of such presentations is limited. Educational approaches to increasing awareness of fetal movements in pregnant women and maternity care providers with the aim of reducing stillbirths have recently been evaluated in a several large clinical trials internationally. The International Stillbirth Alliance Virtual Conference in Sydney 2021 provided an opportunity for international experts in fetal movements to share reports on the findings of fetal movement awareness trials, consider evidence for biological mechanisms linking DFM and fetal death, appraise approaches to clinical assessment of DFM, and highlight research priorities in this area. Following this workshop summaries of the sessions prepared by the authors provide an overview of understandings of fetal movements in maternity care at the current time and highlights future directions in fetal movement research.

Development of core outcome sets for studies relating to awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to create core outcome sets (COSs) for use in research studies relating to the awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement (RFM).

DESIGN

Delphi survey and consensus process.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

A total of 128 participants (40 parents, 19 researchers and 65 clinicians) from 16 countries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify outcomes in studies of interventions relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM. Using these outcomes as a preliminary list, stakeholders rated the importance of these outcomes for inclusion in COSs for studies of: (i) awareness of RFM; and (ii) clinical management of RFM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preliminary lists of outcomes were discussed at consensus meetings where two COSs (one for studies of RFM awareness and one for studies of clinical management of RFM).

RESULTS

The first round of the Delphi survey was completed by 128 participants, 66% of whom (n = 84) completed all three rounds. Fifty outcomes identified by the systematic review, after multiple definitions were combined, were voted on in round one. Two outcomes were added in round one, and as such 52 outcomes were voted on in two lists in rounds two and three. The COSs for studies of RFM awareness and clinical management are comprised of eight outcomes (four maternal and four neonatal) and 10 outcomes (two maternal and eight neonatal), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These COSs provide researchers with the minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in studies relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM.

Effect of encouraging awareness of reduced fetal movement and subsequent clinical management on pregnancy outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Reduced fetal movement, defined as a decrease in the frequency or strength of fetal movements as perceived by the mother, is a common reason for presentation to maternity care. Observational studies have demonstrated an association between reduced fetal movement and stillbirth and fetal growth restriction related to placental insufficiency. However, individual intervention studies have described varying results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether interventions aimed at encouraging awareness of reduced fetal movement and/or improving its subsequent clinical management reduce the frequency of stillbirth or other important secondary outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Guidelines, trial registries, and gray literature were also searched. Databases were searched from inception to January 20, 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled nonrandomized studies were eligible if they assessed interventions aimed at encouraging awareness of fetal movement or fetal movement counting and/or improving the subsequent clinical management of reduced fetal movement. Eligible populations were singleton pregnancies after 24 completed weeks of gestation. The primary review outcome was stillbirth; a number of secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were specified in the review.

METHODS

Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies I tools for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies, respectively. Variation caused by heterogeneity was assessed using I². Data from studies employing similar interventions were combined using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1609 citations were identified; 190 full-text articles were evaluated against the inclusion criteria, 18 studies (16 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized studies) were included. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of encouraging awareness of fetal movement on stillbirth when compared with standard care (2 studies, n=330,084) with a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 1.19 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.47). Interventions for encouraging awareness of fetal movement may be associated with a reduction in neonatal intensive care unit admissions and Apgar scores of <7 at 5 minutes of age and may not be associated with increases in cesarean deliveries or induction of labor. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of encouraging fetal movement counting on stillbirth when compared with standard care with a pooled odds ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-2.65) based on data from 3 randomized controlled trials (n=70,584). Counting fetal movements may increase maternal-fetal attachment and decrease anxiety when compared with standard care. When comparing combined interventions of fetal movement awareness and subsequent clinical management with standard care (1 study, n=393,857), the evidence is uncertain about the effect on stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.05).

CONCLUSION

The effect of interventions for encouraging awareness of reduced fetal movement alone or in combination with subsequent clinical management on stillbirth is uncertain. Encouraging awareness of fetal movement may be associated with reduced adverse neonatal outcomes without an increase in interventions in labor. The meta-analysis was hampered by variations in interventions, outcome reporting, and definitions. Individual studies are frequently underpowered to detect a reduction in severe, rare outcomes and no studies were included from high-burden settings. Studies from such settings are needed to determine whether interventions can reduce stillbirth.

Pregnancy, birth and neonatal outcomes associated with reduced fetal movements: A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomised studies

PROBLEM

Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is identified as an important alarm signal for possible risk of impending adverse perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Perinatal outcomes associated with RFM are increasingly being investigated in non-randomised studies with several associated outcomes, including stillbirth, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction and neonatal death being reported. Findings from studies, however, are conflicting.

AIM

To synthesise the findings of published studies regarding pregnancy, birth and neonatal outcomes in women who presented with RFM.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL complete, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index databases were searched up to 8th July 2021 and updated again on 8th September 2022. Non-randomised studies involving pregnant women ≥24 weeks' gestation, who presented with a primary complaint of RFM compared to women who did not present with RFM were included. Data were meta-analysed using a random-effects model and presented as Odds Ratios (OR) or Standard Mean Differences (SMD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).

FINDINGS

Thirty-nine studies were included. Women with RFM had increased odds of stillbirth (OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.02-5.88) and small for gestational age (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.61) when compared with women who did not have RFM. Associations were also found for induction of labor, instrumental birth and caesarean section but not for preterm birth (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19) or neonatal death (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.52-1.90).

CONCLUSION

This review revealed that RFM is associated with increased odds of stillbirth, small for gestational age, induction of labor, instrumental birth and caesarean section but not preterm birth or neonatal death.