Key result
The novel computerized analysis program for cardiotocography demonstrated good agreement with visual interpretation for overall NICHD categories (kappa 0.80) and excellent agreement for baseline fetal heart rate (ICC 0.91).
Why the study?
Does a novel computerized analysis program improve interobserver agreement compared to visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocography in pregnant women?
Observational (n=62)
Blinded to other examiners' results
No
Does a novel computerized analysis program improve interobserver agreement compared to visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocography in pregnant women?
Effect estimate: kappa 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.94)
A novel computerized analysis program for cardiotocography interpretation is not inferior to visual interpretation by obstetricians and demonstrates excellent agreement for baseline fetal heart rate and accelerations.
Computerized analysis adds no reliability to visual cardiotocography interpretation; leaves open its impact on perinatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare a novel computerized analysis program with visual cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation results. METHODS: Sixty-two intrapartum CTG tracings with 20- to 30-minute sections were independently interpreted using a novel computerized analysis program, as well as the visual interpretations of eight obstetricians, to evaluate the baseline fetal heart rate (FHR), baseline FHR variability, number of accelerations, number/type of decelerations, uterine contraction (UC) frequency, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 3-Tier FHR classification system. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in interobserver variation after adding the components of computerized analysis to results from the obstetricians' visual interpretations, with excellent agreement for the baseline FHR (ICC 0.91), the number of accelerations (ICC 0.85), UC frequency (ICC 0.97), and NICHD category I (kappa statistic 0.91); good agreement for baseline variability (kappa statistic 0.68), the numbers of early decelerations (ICC 0.78) and late decelerations (ICC 0.67), category II (kappa statistic 0.78), and overall categories (kappa statistic 0.80); and moderate agreement for the number of variable decelerations (ICC 0.60), and category III (kappa statistic 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: This computerized analysis program is not inferior to visual interpretation, may improve interobserver variations, and could play a vital role in prenatal telemedicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Intrapartum fetal monitoring (n=62). Novel computerized analysis program for cardiotocography vs. Visual interpretation by obstetricians was evaluated on Agreement for overall NICHD categories (kappa 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.94). The novel computerized analysis program for cardiotocography demonstrated good agreement with visual interpretation for overall NICHD categories (kappa 0.80) and excellent agreement for baseline fetal heart rate (ICC 0.91).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: