Visual vs. computerized analysis of FHR tracings

Contemporary Ob/Gyn

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 64-80

  Devoe, Lawrence D ^a   McDaniel, Timothy ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949971998     PISSN: 00903159     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Myers RE. Two patterns of perinatal brain damage and their conditions of occurrence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112:246-276.
2. Banta HD, Thacker SB. Assessing the costs and benefits of electronic fetal monitoring. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1979;34:627-642.
3. Thacker SB, Stroup DF, Chang M. Continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Review. In Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.- Fetal Heart Rate Patterns: Monitoring, Interpretation and Management. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1995; Technical Bulletin No. 207.
5. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Fetal Health Surveillance in Labor. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can. 1995;17:865-901.
6. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: Research guidelines for interpretation. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:1385-1390.
7. Grant JM. The fetal heart rate tracing is normal, isn't it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments. Lancet. 1991;337:215-218.
8. Beaulieu MD, Fabia J, Leduc B, et al. The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments. Can Med Assoc J. 1982;127:214-216.
9. Nielsen PV, Stigsby B, Nickelsen C, et al. Intra- and interobserver variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66:421-424.
10. Borgatta L, Shrout PE, Divon MY. Reliability and reproducibility of nonstress test readings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;159:554-558.
11. Lotgering FK, Wallenburg HC, Schouten HJ. Interobserver and Interobserver variation in the assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:701-705.
12. Hage ML. Interpretation of nonstress tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;153:490-495.
13. Donker DK, van Geijn, HP, Hasman A. Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. Bur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993;52:21-28.
14. Trimbos JB, Keirse MJ. Observer variability in assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978;85:900-906.
15. Gagnon R, Campbell MK, Hunse C. A comparison between visual and computer analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:842-847.
16. Hiett AK, Devoe LD, Youssef A, et al. A comparison of visual and automated methods of analyzing fetal heart rate tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1517-1521.
17. Devoe LD. Computerized approaches to fetal surveillance. In: Maulik D, ed. Asphyxia and Fetal Brain Damage. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1998:241-254.
18. Devoe LD, Golde S, Kilman Y, et al. A comparison ot visual analyses of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings according to the new National Institute of Child Health and Human Development guidelines with computer analyses by an automated fetal heart rate monitoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:361-366.
19. Keith RD, Beckley S, Garibaldi JM, et al. A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:688-700.
20. Beckley S, Stenhouse E, Greene K. The development and evaluation of a computer-assisted teaching programme for intrapartum fetal monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;107:1138-1144.