Intra-and interobserver variability of intrapartum cardiotocography: A multicenter study comparing the figo classification with computer analysis software

Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 169-173

  Schiermeier, S ^a   Westhof, G ^b   Leven, A ^c   Hatzmann, H ^a   Reinhard, J ^a  

^a ST JOSEF HOSPITAL   (Germany)

^b St Agnes Hospital Bocholt gGmbH   (Germany)

^c Helios Klinikum   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cardiotocography; Computer analyzing software; Intraobserver and interobserver agreement; Intrapartum; Labor

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; FETUS BLOOD; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INTRAPARTUM CARE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PH; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETAL BLOOD; FETAL MONITORING; HUMANS; MIDWIFERY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 80255123507     PISSN: 03787346     EISSN: 1423002X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000327133     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ACOG: ACOG technical bulletin. Fetal heart rate patterns: monitoring, interpretation and management. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995; 51: 65.
2. FIGO: FIGO News: guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1987; 25: 159-167.
3. NICHHD: 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.
4. Hage ML: Interpretation of nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 153-155.
5. Paneth N, Bommarito M, Stricker J: Electronic fetal monitoring and later outcome. Clin Invest Med 1993; 16: 159-165. (Pubitemid 23181206)
6. Spencer JAD, Badawi N, Burton P, Keogh J, Pemberton P, Stanley F: The intrapartum CTG prior to neonatal encephalopathy at term: a case-control study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 25-28. (Pubitemid 27019889)
7. Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Pereira-Leite L: Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 1307.
8. Amer-Wählin I, Ingemarsson I, Marsal K, Herbst A: Fetal heart rate patterns and ECG ST segment changes preceding metabolic acidaemia at birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 112: 160.
9. Ross MG, Devoe LD, Rosen KG: ST-segment analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram improves fetal heart rate tracing interpretation and clinical decision making. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 15: 181.
10. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, Hagberg H, Herbst A, Kjelimer I, et al: Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 534.
11. Schiermeier S, Pildner v Steinburg S, Thieme A, Reinhard J, Daumer M, Scholz M, Hatzmann W, Schneider KTM: Sensitivity and specificity of intrapartum computerised FIGO criteria for cardiotocography (CTG) and fetal scalp pH during labour: multicentre, observational study. BJOG 2008; 115: 1557-1563.
12. Palomäki O, Luukkaala T, Luoto R, Tuimala R: Intrapartum cardiotocography-the dilemma of interpretational variation. J Perinat Med 2006; 34: 298-302. (Pubitemid 44114567)
13. Grant JM: The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments. Lancet 1991; 337: 215.
14. Keith RDF, Beckley S, Garibald JM, Westgate JA, Ifeachor BC, Greene KR: 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.
15. Donker DK: Interobserver Variations in the Assessment of Fetal Heart Rate Recordings. Amsterdam, Vrije University Press, 1991, pp 145-161.
16. Lotgering FK, Wallenburg HCS, Schouten HJA: Interobserver and Intraobserver variation in assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 701-705. (Pubitemid 13233937)
17. Trimbos JB, Keirse MJNC: Observer variability in assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85: 900-906. (Pubitemid 9030428)
18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Fetal heart rate patterns: monitoring, interpretation, and management. ACOG Technical Bulletin No 207. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995; 51: 65-74.
19. Vintzileos AM, Antsaklis A, Varvarigos I, et al: A randomized trial of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 899-907. (Pubitemid 23168730)
20. Vintzileos AM, Nochimson DJ, Antsaklis A, et al: Comparison of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation in detecting fetal acidemia at birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 1021-1024.
21. Vintzileos AM, Nochimson DJ, Guzman ER, et al: Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 149-155.
22. Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, et al: Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 613-618. (Pubitemid 26072118)
23. Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J, FIGO Subcommittee: Twenty-five years after the FIGO guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring: time for a simplified approach? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 110: 16.
24. Roemer VM: Quantitative CTG appraisal sub partu with a new CTG score: diagnostic significance of the parameters of the acidbase balance in umbilical blood? (in German) Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2003; 207: 121-126. (Pubitemid 37211224)