Key result
CTGNet matches clinicians in estimating fetal heart rate baselines with a ~0.36 bpm mean difference.
Why the study?
This study aimed to compare the fetal heart rate baseline predicted by the cardiotocograph network (CTGNet) with that estimated by clinicians.
Does CTGNet provide comparable fetal heart rate baseline estimation to clinicians in FHR recordings?
Observational (n=1,267)
Yes
Does CTGNet provide comparable fetal heart rate baseline estimation to clinicians in FHR recordings?
CTGNet demonstrates excellent agreement with clinicians for estimating fetal heart rate baselines across different fetal monitors and signal loss rates.
Background: This study aims to compare the fetal heart rate (FHR) baseline predicted by the cardiotocograph network (CTGNet) with that estimated by clinicians. Material and methods: A total of 1,267 FHR recordings acquired with different electrical fetal monitors (EFM) were collected from five datasets: 84 FHR recordings acquired with F15 EFM (Edan, Shenzhen, China) from the Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, 331 FHR recordings acquired with SRF618B5 EFM (Sanrui, Guangzhou, China), 234 FHR recordings acquired with F3 EFM (Lian-Med, Guangzhou, China) from the NanFang Hospital of Southen Medical University, 552 cardiotocographys (CTG) recorded using STAN S21 and S31 (Neoventa Medical, Mölndal, Sweden) and Avalon FM40 and FM50 (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) from the University Hospital in Brno, Czech Republic, and 66 FHR recordings acquired using Avalon FM50 fetal monitor (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) at St Vincent de Paul Hospital (Lille, France). Each FHR baseline was estimated by clinicians and CTGNet, respectively. And agreement between CTGNet and clinicians was evaluated using the kappa statistics, intra-class correlation coefficient, and the limits of agreement. Results: The number of differences <3 beats per minute (bpm), 3-5 bpm, 5-10 bpm and ≥10 bpm, is 64.88%, 15.94%, 14.44% and 4.74%, respectively. Kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficient are 0.873 and 0.969, respectively. Limits of agreement are -6.81 and 7.48 (mean difference: 0.36 and standard deviation: 3.64). Conclusion: An excellent agreement was found between CTGNet and clinicians in the baseline estimation from FHR recordings with different signal loss rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bai et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Fetal heart rate monitoring (n=1,267). CTGNet vs. Clinicians' estimation was evaluated on Agreement in fetal heart rate baseline estimation (MD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.54). CTGNet demonstrated excellent agreement with clinicians in estimating fetal heart rate baselines, achieving a mean difference of 0.36 bpm and a Kappa statistic of 0.873.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: