Analysis of obstetricians' decision making on CTG recordings

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 51, Issue , 2014, Pages 72-79

  Spilka, Jiří ^a   Chudáček, Václav ^a   Janků, Petr ^b   Hruban, Lukáš ^b   Burša, Miroslav ^a   Huptych, Michal ^a   Zach, Lukáš ^a   Lhotská, Lenka ^a  

^a CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BRNO   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Biomedical informatics; Cardiotocography; Decision making; Fetal heart rate; Latent class analysis; Observer variation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; FETAL HEART RATE; LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATIONS;

DECISION MAKING;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LATENT CLASS MODEL; MAJORITY VOTING; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; OBSTETRICIAN; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; OBSTETRICS; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OBSTETRICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84908049595     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Sartwelle T.P. Electronic fetal monitoring: a bridge too far. J Leg Med 2012, 33(3):313-379.
2. FIGO Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1986, 25:159-167.
3. Blackwell S.C., Grobman W.A., Antoniewicz L., Hutchinson M., Gyamfi Bannerman C. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-tier fetal heart rate interpretation System. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205(4):378.e1-378.e5.
4. RCOG Royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists. The use of electronic fetal monitoring. Evidence-based clinical guidelines 2001, RCOG Press, London.
5. Macones G.A., Hankins G.D.V., Spong C.Y., 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. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008, 37(5):510-515.
6. ACOG American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114(1):192-202.
7. de Campos D.A., Bernardes J. Twenty-five years after the FIGO guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring: time for a simplified approach?. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010, 110(1):1-6.
8. Schifrin B.S. The CTG and the timing and mechanism of fetal neurological injuries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 18(3):437-456.
9. Parer J.T., Ikeda T. A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197(1):26.e1-26.e6.
10. Parer J.T., Ikeda T., King T.L. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development report on fetal heart rate monitoring. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114(1):136-138.
11. Parer J., Hamilton E. Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 203(5):451.e1-451.e7.
12. Tommaso M.D., Seravalli V., Cordisco A., Consorti G., Mecacci F., Rizzello F. Comparison of five classification systems for interpreting electronic fetal monitoring in predicting neonatal status at birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013, 26(5):487-490.
13. Coletta J., Murphy E., Rubeo Z., Gyamfi-Bannerman C. The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206(3):226.e1-226.e5.
14. Miller D.A., Miller L.A. Three-tier versus five-tier fetal heart rate classification systems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 207(6):e8-9. author reply e9.
15. Santos C.C., Pereira A.C., Bernardes J. Agreement studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: inappropriateness, controversies and consequences. BJOG 2005, 112(5):667-669.
16. Feinstein A.R., Cicchetti D.V. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43(6):543-549.
17. Cicchetti D.V., Feinstein A.R. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43(6):551-558.
18. Zach L., Chudáček V., Huptych M., Spilka J., Burša M., Lhotská L. CTG annotator-novel tool for better insight into expert-obstetrician decision making processes. World congress on medical physics and biomedical engineering May 26-31, 2012 2013, 1280-1282. Springer, Beijing, China.
19. Chudáček V., Spilka J., Burša M., Janků P., Hruban L., Huptych M., et al. Open access intrapartum CTG database. BMC Preg Childbirth 2014, 14(1):16.
20. Boland P.J. Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem. Statistician 1989, 38(3):181-189.
21. Raykar V.C., Yu S. Eliminating spammers and ranking annotators for crowdsourced labeling tasks. J Mach Learn Res 2012, 13:491-518.
22. Blix E., Sviggum O., Koss K.S., Oian P. Inter-observer variation in assessment of 845 labour admission tests: comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts. BJOG 2003, 110(1):1-5.
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 labour: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN. BJOG 2009, 116(8):1081-1087. discussion 1087-8.
24. Yan Y, Rosales R, Fung G, Schmidt M, Hermosillo G, Bogoni L, et al. Modeling annotator expertise: learning when everybody knows a bit of something. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, vol. 9; 2010. p. 932-9.
25. Dawid A.P., Skene A.M. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Appl Stat 1979, 28:20-28.
26. McLachlan G., Peel D. Finite mixture models 2000, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
27. Dempster A.P., Laird N.M., Rubin D.B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J Roy Stat Soc. Ser B (Methodol) 1977, 1-38.
28. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Second international symposium on information theory 1973, 267-281. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. B.N. Petrov, F. Csaki (Eds.).
29. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978, 6(2):461-464.
30. Keith R.D., Beckley S., Garibaldi J.M., Westgate J.A., Ifeachor E.C., Greene K.R. A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995, 102(9):688-700.