Routine fetal movement counting vs mixed or undefined fetal movement counting: Maternal‐fetal attachment
Routine fetal movement counting showed no clear difference in maternal‐fetal attachment compared with mixed or undefined fetal movement counting (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Routine fetal movement counting vs mixed or undefined fetal movement counting Maternal‐fetal attachment · Pregnant women who had reached the gestational age of fetal viability Routine fetal movement counting showed no clear difference in maternal‐fetal attachment compared with mixed or undefined fetal movement counting (low certainty). Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 951 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.