Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare interobserver variation in interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocograms.
Subjects: Fifteen senior (experience >4 years) and 16 junior (experience ≤4 years) obstetricians from 10 delivery units.
Design: Thirty-one obstetricians interpreted intrapartum cardiotocographic (CTG) readings from 22 parturients.
Methods: Inter-observer agreement in CTG interpretation and decision-making was assessed via proportions of agreement (Pa), with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Main outcome measures: The level of inter-observer agreement was analyzed by calculating Pa values for CTG baseline, variability, early, variable and late decelerations, uterine tonus, power of contractions, hypertonus and clinical decision.
Results: In assessments of normal cases the Pa were acceptable or good (0.63–0.82) as regards all CTG interpretation elements except for the power of contractions (0.24), but in assessments of abnormal cases the Pa values were lower (0.18–0.60). As regards clinical decisions, a higher Pa was found in cases without recommendation for intervention (0.63, 95% CI 0.62–0.64) than in cases with such recommendation (0.55, 95% CI 0.54–0.56). The Pa in the abnormal cases was better among senior than among junior obstetricians.
Conclusions: Inter-observer variation in interpretation of abnormal CTG readings and recommendations for intervention is relatively wide. To improve reliability, uniform classification and standardized training in CTG interpretation are needed, as well as increased use of computerized CTG.
References
1 ACOG: ACOG technical bulletin. Fetal heart rate patterns: monitoring, interpretation, and management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 51 (1995) 65Search in Google Scholar
2 Amer-Wåhlin I, C Hellsten, H Noren, H Hagberg, A Herbst, I Kjellmer, et al.: Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet358 (2001) 534Search in Google Scholar
3 Amer-Wåhlin I, I Ingemarsson, K Marsal, A Herbst: Fetal heart rate patterns and ECG ST segment changes preceding metabolic acidaemia at birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol112 (2005) 160Search in Google Scholar
4 Ayres-de-Campos D, J Bernardes: Early, variable and late decelerations: can a consensus be reached in their identification? Int J Gynaecol Obstet65 (1999) 305Search in Google Scholar
5 Ayres-de-Campos D, J Bernardes, A Costa-Pereira, L Pereira-Leite: Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision. Br J Obstet Gynaecol106 (1999) 1307Search in Google Scholar
6 Beckley S, E Stenhouse, K Greene: The development and evaluation of a computer-assisted teaching programme for intrapartum fetal monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol107 (2000) 1138Search in Google Scholar
7 Bernardes J, A Costa-Pereira, D Ayres-de-Campos, HP van Geijn, L Pereira-Leite: Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms. Int J Gynaecol Obstet57 (1997) 33Search in Google Scholar
8 Bland JM, DG Altman: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1 (1986) 307Search in Google Scholar
9 Blix E, O Sviggum, KS Koss, P Oian: Inter-observer variation in assessment of 845 labour admission tests: comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol110 (2003) 1Search in Google Scholar
10 Burke MS, RP Porreco, D Day, JD Watson, AD Haverkamp, M Orleans, et al.: Intrauterine resuscitation with tocolysis. An alternate month clinical trial. J Perinatol9 (1989) 296Search in Google Scholar
11 Cibils LA: On intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol174 (1996) 138210.1016/S0002-9378(96)70689-0Search in Google Scholar
12 Dellinger EH, FH Boehm: Emergency management of fetal stress and distress in the obstetric patient. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am22 (1995) 215Search in Google Scholar
13 Devoe L, S Golde, Y Kilman, D Morton, K Shea, J Waller: A comparison of visual analyses of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings according to the new national institute of child health and human development guidelines with computer analyses by an automated fetal heart rate monitoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol183 (2000) 361Search in Google Scholar
14 Donker DK, HP van Geijn, A Hasman: Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol52 (1993) 21Search in Google Scholar
15 FIGO: FIGO News: Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 25 (1987) 159Search in Google Scholar
16 FIGO: Report of the FIGO Study Group on the Assessment of New Technology. Evaluation and standardization of fetal monitoring. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 59 (1997) 169Search in Google Scholar
17 Grant JM: The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments. Lancet337 (1991) 215Search in Google Scholar
18 Hadar A, E Sheiner, M Hallak, M Katz, M Mazor, I Shoham-Vardi: Abnormal fetal heart rate tracing patterns during the first stage of labor: effect on perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol185 (2001) 863Search in Google Scholar
19 Huddleston JF: Intrapartum fetal assessment. A review. Clin Perinatol26 (1999) 54910.1016/S0095-5108(18)30036-8Search in Google Scholar
20 Keith RD, S Beckley, JM Garibaldi, JA Westgate, EC Ifeachor, KR Greene: A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol102 (1995) 688Search in Google Scholar
21 Lakasing L, JA Spencer: Care management problems on the labour ward: 5 years' experience of clinical risk management. J Obstet Gynaecol22 (2002) 470Search in Google Scholar
22 Lidegaard O, LM Bottcher, T Weber: Description, evaluation and clinical decision making according to various fetal heart rate patterns. Inter-observer and regional variability. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand71 (1992) 48Search in Google Scholar
23 Liszka-Hackzell JJ: Categorization of fetal heart rate patterns using neural networks. J Med Syst25 (2001) 26910.1023/A:1010779205000Search in Google Scholar
24 Lotgering FK, HC Wallenburg, HJ Schouten: Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol144 (1982) 701Search in Google Scholar
25 Low JA, R Victory, EJ Derrick: Predictive value of electronic fetal monitoring for intrapartum fetal asphyxia with metabolic acidosis. Obstet Gynecol93 (1999) 285Search in Google Scholar
26 Luttkus AK, H Noren, JH Stupin, S Blad, S Arulkumaran, R Erkkola, et al.: Fetal scalp pH and ST analysis of the fetal ECG as an adjunct to CTG. A multi-center, observational study. J Perinat Med32 (2004) 486Search in Google Scholar
27 Morris DG: Using telemedicine to facilitate training in cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation. J Telemed Telecare 6 Suppl1 (2000) S5310.1258/1357633001934140Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28 Neilson JP: Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2) (2003) CD00011610.1002/14651858.CD000116Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29 NICHHD: Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177 (1997) 1385Search in Google Scholar
30 Noren H, I Amer-Wåhlin, H Hagberg, A Herbst, I Kjellmer, K Marsal, et al.: Fetal electrocardiography in labor and neonatal outcome: data from the Swedish randomized controlled trial on intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol188 (2003) 183Search in Google Scholar
31 Rosen KG, I Amer-Wåhlin, R Luzietti R, H Noren: Fetal ECG waveform analysis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol18 (2004) 485Search in Google Scholar
32 Ross MG, LD Devoe, KG Rosen: ST-segment analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram improves fetal heart rate tracing interpretation and clinical decision making. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med15 (2004) 181Search in Google Scholar
33 Sameshima H, T Ikenoue, T Ikeda, M Kamitomo, S Ibara: Unselected low-risk pregnancies and the effect of continuous intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring on umbilical blood gases and cerebral palsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol190 (2004) 118Search in Google Scholar
34 Shekarloo A, C Mendez-Bauer, V Cook, U Freese: Terbutaline (intravenous bolus) for the treatment of acute intrapartum fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol160 (1989) 615Search in Google Scholar
35 Thacker SB, DF Stroup, HB Peterson: Intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: data for clinical decisions. Clin Obstet Gynecol41 (1998) 362Search in Google Scholar
36 Thacker SB, D Stroup, M Chang: Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2001) CD00006310.1002/14651858.CD000063Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37 Williams KP, F Galerneau: Intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns in the prediction of neonatal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol188 (2003) 820Search in Google Scholar
38 Williams KP, F Galerneau: Comparison of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings in patients with neonatal seizures vs. no seizures: what are the differences? J Perinat Med32 (2004) 422Search in Google Scholar
39 Young P, R Hamilton, S Hodgett, M Moss, C Rigby, P Jones, et al.: Reducing risk by improving standards of intrapartum fetal care. J R Soc Med94 (2001) 226Search in Google Scholar
©2006 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
