Literature DB >> 3425243

Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms.

P V Nielsen1, B Stigsby, C Nickelsen, J Nim.   

Abstract

The diagnostic value of a test depends on the variability of the test results and the accuracy of the test. The object of this investigation was to estimate the observer variability and the accuracy, when intrapartum CTGs were assessed by experienced obstetricians. Fifty CTGs were evaluated twice by four obstetricians. They were asked to identify the CTGs belonging to the compromised infants. They were told the criteria for a compromised infant and the incidence (one-third). Eleven (22%) of the CTGs were assessed in the same way of all the obstetricians in both evaluations. Between the obstetricians, the accuracy ranged from 50 to 66%. We conclude that the considerable observer variability found in this and other investigations must severely impair the clinical value of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM). The variability must be reduced before the "true" predictive value and the cost/benefit of EFM can be estimated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3425243     DOI: 10.3109/00016348709022046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  14 in total

1.  A comparison of subjective and mathematical estimations of fetal heart rate variability.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg; David J Derosier; Trevor Roberts; Zeeshan Syed; Gari D Clifford; David Acker; Adre Du Plessis
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2008-02

2.  A Review of the Proceedings from the 2008 NICHD Workshop on Standardized Nomenclature for Cardiotocography: Update on Definitions, Interpretative Systems With Management Strategies, and Research Priorities in Relation to Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Authors:  Barrett Robinson; Latasha Nelson
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

3.  A Review of NICHD Standardized Nomenclature for Cardiotocography: The Importance of Speaking a Common Language When Describing Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Authors:  Barrett Robinson
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

4. 

Authors:  F Béguin
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population.

Authors:  G Mires; F Williams; P Howie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-06-16

6.  Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Lisbet S Lundsberg; Kathleen Belanger; Christian M Pettker; Edmund F Funai; Jessica L Illuzzi
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Heart murmurs recorded by a sensor based electronic stethoscope and e-mailed for remote assessment.

Authors:  L B Dahl; P Hasvold; E Arild; T Hasvold
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.791

8.  Electronic fetal monitoring: a Canadian survey.

Authors:  B L Davies; P A Niday; C A Nimrod; E R Drake; A E Sprague; M J Trépanier
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Are physicians changing the way they practise obstetrics?

Authors:  J Ruderman; J C Carroll; A J Reid; M A Murray
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 10.  Fetal heart rate monitoring: from Doppler to computerized analysis.

Authors:  Ji Young Kwon; In Yang Park
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2016-03-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.