***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included seven published trials: six comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) and one comparing fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG with fetal ECG plus CTG. The published trials, with some unpublished data, were at high risk of bias in terms of the impractical nature of blinding participants and clinicians, as well as high risk or unclear risk of bias for outcome assessor for all but one report. Selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other sources of bias were of low or unclear risk. The trials reported on a total of 8013 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials. Systematic review of four trials from 34 weeks not requiring fetal blood sampling (FBS) prior to study entry showed no evidence of differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked (average risk ratio (RR) 0.99 using random-effects, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.86 to 1.13, n = 4008, I² = 45%). There was evidence of a higher risk of caesarean section in the group with fetal oximetry plus CTG than in the group with fetal ECG plus CTG (one study, n = 180, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29). Neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy were rare in both groups. No studies reported details of long-term disability. There was evidence of a decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group, gestation from 34 weeks (average RR (random-effects) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, n = 4008, I² = 63%). There was no evidence of differences between groups in caesarean section for dystocia, although the overall incidence rates varied between the trials. The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. One study found a higher caesarean section rate in the group monitored with fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG, compared with fetal ECG plus CTG. The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. A better method than pulse oximetry is required to enhance the overall evaluation of fetal well-being in labour.
Output:

The review identified seven trials involving 8013 women. Fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG showed no difference in caesarean section rates overall, nor any difference in the mother's or newborn's health, compared with CTG alone. If there was concern about the baby's well-being before the fetal pulse oximetry probe was placed, the use of fetal pulse oximetry reduced caesarean sections performed for the baby's well-being. The one trial of oximetry with CTG compared with CTG and fetal ECG showed an increase in the caesarean rate in the oximetry group. In two of the trials, the company making the fetal pulse oximetry machines provided some funding. A better method than fetal pulse oximetry is needed for checking on the well-being of the baby during labour.