Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 205, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 378.e1-378.e5

  Blackwell, Sean C ^a   Grobman, William A ^b   Antoniewicz, Leah ^a   Hutchinson, Maria ^a   Bannerman, Cynthia Gyamfi ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NewYork Presbyterian Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

Electronic fetal monitoring; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development classification system; Fetal heart rate; Fetal heart rate interpretation; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; FETUS HEART RATE; INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY; INTRAOBSERVER RELIABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS;

CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; HEART RATE, FETAL; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84855169310     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.086     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:661-6.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114:192-202.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOGpractice bulletin no. 116: man- agement of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1232-40.
4. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. (Pubitemid 8054849)
5. Trimbos JB, Keirse MJ. Observer variability in assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978;85:900-6. (Pubitemid 9030428)
6. Peck TM. Physicians' subjectivity in evaluating oxytocin challenge tests. Obstet Gynecol 1980;56:13-6. (Pubitemid 10035687)
7. Lotgering FK, Wallenburg HC, Schouten HJ. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:701-5. (Pubitemid 13233937)
8. Beaulieu MD, Fabia J, Leduc B, et al. The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments. Can Med Assoc J 1982;127: 214-6. (Pubitemid 12044750)
9. Nielsen PV, Stigsby B, Nickelsen C, Nim J. Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987;66:421-4. (Pubitemid 17165946)
10. Borgatta L, Shrout PE, Divon MY. Reliability and reproducibility of nonstress test readings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:554-8.
11. Lidegaard O, Bottcher LM, Weber T. Description, evaluation and clinical decision making according to various fetal heart rate patterns: inter-observer and regional variability. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992;71:48-53.
12. Donker DK, van Geijn HP, Hasman A. Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;52:21-8. (Pubitemid 24028494)
13. Keith RD, Beckley S, Garibaldi JM, Westgate JA, Ifeachor EC, Greene KR. A multicenter comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labor using the cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:688-700.
14. Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Ayres-de- Campos D, van Geijn HP, Pereira-Leite L. Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997;57: 33-7. (Pubitemid 27207665)
15. Devoe L, Golde S, Kilman Y, Morton D, Shea K, Waller J. A comparison of 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;183:361-6. (Pubitemid 30651082)
16. Blix E, Sviggum O, Koss KS, Oian P. Interobserver variation in assessment of 845 labor admission tests: comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts. BJOG 2003;110:1-5. (Pubitemid 36034285)
17. Devane D, Lalor J. Midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement. J Adv Nurs 2005;52:133-41. (Pubitemid 41392058)
18. Figueras F, Albela S, Bonino S, et al. Visual analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings: inter- and intra-observer agreement and impact of knowledge of neonatal outcome. J Perinat Med 2005;33:241-5. (Pubitemid 41069867)
19. Palomäki O, Luukkaala T, Luoto R, Tuimala R. Intrapartum cardiotocography-the dilemma of interpretational variation. J Perinat Med 2006;34:298-302. (Pubitemid 44114567)
20. Ojala K, Makikallio K, Haapsamo M, Ijas H, Tekay A. Interobserver agreement in the assessment of intrapartum automated fetal electrocardiography in singleton pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:536-40. (Pubitemid 351630858)
21. Chauhan SP, Klauser CK, Woodring TC, Sanderson M, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:623.e1-5.
22. Westerhuis ME, van Horen E, Kwee A, van der Tweel I, Visser GH, Moons KG. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of intrapartum ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram in women monitored by STAN. BJOG 2009; 116:545-51.
23. Vayssiere C, Tsatsaris V, Pirrello O, Cristini C, Arnaud C, Goffinet F. Inter-observer agreement in clinical decision-making for abnormal cardiotocogram (CTG) during labor: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN. BJOG 2009;116:1081-8.
24. Parer JT, Hamilton EF. Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:451.e1-7.