Intrapartum cardiotocography: an exploratory analysis of interpretational variation

References

• ACOG 2009. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Nomenclature, Interpretation, and General Management Principles. Obstetrics and Gynecology 114:192–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Declan D, Gyte GML, Cuthbert A. 2017. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CD006066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG. 1990. Practical statistics for medical research. 1st ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Amadori R, Grandioso S, Osella E, Melluzza C, Aquino CI, Stampini V, et al. 2022. Preventing the human factor: organizational aspects linked to fetal asphyxia. Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology 74:288–293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amer-Wåhlin I, Ingemarsson I, Marsal K, Herbst A. 2005. Fetal heart rate patterns and ECG ST segment changes preceding metabolic acidaemia at birth. BJOG 112:160–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balayla J, Shrem G. 2019. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the interpretation of intrapartum fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 300:7–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertino E, Spada E, Occhi L, Coscia A, Giuliani F, Gagliardi L, et al. 2010. Neonatal anthropometric charts: the Italian Neonatal Study compared with other European studies. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 51:353–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatia M, Mahtani KR, Nunan D, Reddy A. 2017. A cross-sectional comparison of three guidelines for intrapartum cardiotocography. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 138:89–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brocklehurst P; INFANT Collaborative Group. 2016. A study of an intelligent system to support decision making in the management of labour using the cardiotocograph – the INFANT study protocol. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16:10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cömert Z, Kocamaz AF. 2017. A study of artificial neural network training algorithms for classification of cardiotocography signals. Bitlis Eren University Journal of Science and Technology 7:93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Desai GS. 2018. Artificial intelligence: the future of obstetrics and gynecology. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 68:326–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Evans SM, Devoe LD. 2022. Changing perspectives of electronic fetal monitoring. Reproductive Sciences 29:1874–1894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman RK. 2002. Problems with intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring interpretation and patient management. Obstetrics and Gynecology 100:813–826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Jiang Z, Cai R, Li L, Chen Q, Hong J, et al. 2021. Investigating the interpretability of fetal status assessment using antepartum cardiotocographic records. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 21:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iftikhar P, Kuijpers MV, Khayyat A, Iftikhar A, DeGouvia De Sa M. 2020. Artificial intelligence: a new paradigm in obstetrics and gynecology research and clinical practice. Cureus 12:e7124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee King PA, Henderson ZT, Borders AEB. 2020. Advances in maternal fetal medicine: perinatal quality collaboratives working together to improve maternal outcomes. Clinics in Perinatology 47:779–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Pereira M, Boylan P, Chalmers I. 1985. The Dublin randomized controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 152:524–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. 1997. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 177:1385–1390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomäki O, Luukkaala T, Luoto R, Tuimala R. 2006. Intrapartum cardiotocography – the dilemma of interpretational variation. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 34:298–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinas A, Chandraharan E. 2016. Continuous cardiotocography during labour: analysis, classification and management. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 30:33–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhöse S, Ayesha MFH, Vandenbussche F, Van Drongelen J, Van Dillen J. 2014. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of non-reassuring cardiotocography analysis and subsequent clinical management. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 93:596–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiermeier S, Westhof G, Leven A, Hatzmann H, Reinhard J. 2011. Intra-and interobserver variability of intrapartum cardiotocography: a multicenter study comparing the FIGO classification with computer analysis software. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 72:169–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vayssière C, Tsatsaris V, Pirrello O, Cristini C, Arnaud C, Goffinet F. 2009. Inter-observer agreement in clinical decision-making for abnormal cardiotocogram (CTG) during labour: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN. BJOG 116:1081–1088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vintzileos AM, Nochimson DJ, Guzman ER, Knuppel RA, Lake M, Schifrin BS. 1995. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: a meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology 85:149–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerhuis MEMH, Van Horen E, Kwee A, Van Der Tweel I, Visser GHA, Moons KGM. 2009. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of intrapartum ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram in women monitored by STAN. BJOG 116:545–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis M, Dunn L, Okano S, Janssens S, Kumar S. 2022. The impact on obstetric and perinatal outcomes in term infants following the introduction of a colour-coded, hierarchical cardiotocography classification system: a retrospective non-inferiority study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 62:370–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar