Wired electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is the standard method in many countries but can restrict maternal mobility during labor. Reduced mobility may adversely affect women's ability to cope with pain, their comfort during childbirth, and overall satisfaction with the birth experience. This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether wireless EFM used during labor affects maternal comfort, perceived labor pain, and birth satisfaction compared with conventional wired EFM.
This study was a randomized controlled trial published in J Obstet Gynaecol Res. The final sample comprised 88 women, with 44 assigned to the experimental group (wireless EFM) and 44 to the control group (conventional wired EFM). The authors are affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences at Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University and Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Türkiye. The report lists grant SBF-2021-084 from Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi.
Outcome measures were collected using validated instruments and prespecified time points:
The VAS and CCQ were administered during the active phase of labor at 8–10 cm cervical dilatation. The BSS-R was completed 1 hour postpartum.
Reported comparisons included labor duration, frequency of reactive versus nonreactive EFM findings, mean CCQ scores, mean VAS pain scores, and mean BSS-R scores between the wireless and wired monitoring groups. The abstract reports which between-group differences were statistically significant and which were not, but it does not provide exact p values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals in the summary available.
Labor duration: The wireless EFM group had a shorter labor duration compared with the wired EFM group.
Fetal monitoring classification: Reactive EFM findings occurred more frequently in the wireless EFM group than in the wired EFM group.
Maternal comfort: Mean CCQ scores were higher in the wireless EFM group, indicating greater reported comfort; however, the difference in CCQ did not reach statistical significance according to the abstract.
Labor pain: Mean VAS scores were lower in the wireless EFM group, and the between-group difference for VAS was statistically significant.
Birth satisfaction: Mean BSS-R scores were higher in the wireless EFM group, and the between-group difference for BSS-R was statistically significant. The BSS-R was obtained 1 hour after delivery.
These findings suggest that women monitored with wireless EFM perceived less pain and reported higher satisfaction with their childbirth experience than women monitored with conventional wired EFM, while also exhibiting shorter labor and a higher rate of reactive fetal monitoring findings.
Based on the reported outcomes, the authors conclude that wireless EFM may improve components of the childbirth experience—specifically lower perceived labor pain and higher birth satisfaction—while maintaining effective fetal monitoring. The observed shorter labor duration and greater frequency of reactive EFM patterns in the wireless-monitored group are presented as additional favorable findings.
From a clinical perspective, these results support consideration of wireless EFM as an alternative to wired systems when continuous fetal monitoring is indicated and when maternal mobility is desirable. The abstract frames wireless monitoring as potentially enhancing maternal experience without compromising fetal assessment, though implementation decisions should depend on broader evidence, local protocols, and available devices.
The abstract does not provide several details that would be relevant for full critical appraisal:
These items may be reported in the full text; they were not available in the source abstract used for this summary.
In this randomized controlled trial of 88 women, use of wireless EFM during labor was associated with statistically significant reductions in reported labor pain (VAS) and higher birth satisfaction (BSS-R) at 1 hour postpartum, alongside shorter labor duration and more frequent reactive fetal monitoring findings. Maternal comfort assessed by CCQ was higher in the wireless group but did not reach statistical significance in the abstract. Further appraisal of the full paper is needed to review effect magnitudes, statistical details, safety data, and trial conduct methods.