Key result
Computerized CTG analysis shows ~79% agreement with perinatal outcomes.
Why the study?
Does a computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis accurately predict perinatal outcomes in antepartum and intrapartum settings?
Population
85 cardiotocograms
Comparison
Computerized methodology for cardiotocogram… vs Perinatal outcome classified according to Apgar…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Until delivery/perinatal period
Authors
Loading...
Does not yet support clinical adoption; leaves open whether computerized cardiotocogram analysis improves perinatal prediction.
Observational (n=85)
Does a computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis accurately predict perinatal outcomes in antepartum and intrapartum settings?
Effect estimate: Proportion of agreement 0.79 (95% CI 0.69-0.87)
A computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis based on reproducible baseline estimation demonstrates good agreement with perinatal outcomes.
Bernardes et al. (1998) conducted an observational in Fetal monitoring (n=85). Computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis vs. Perinatal outcome classification was evaluated on Agreement between CTG and perinatal classification (Proportion of agreement 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.87). A computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis demonstrated an initial overall proportion of agreement of 0.79 (95% CI 0.69-0.87) with perinatal outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: