2021
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1986479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic capacity and interobserver variability in FIGO, ACOG, NICE and Chandraharan cardiotocographic guidelines to predict neonatal acidemia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, given that all the CTG traces were evaluated by consensus between three senior obstetricians with specialised expertise in the physiological interpretation of the CTG, such evaluation is expected to be reliable. It should be highlighted that the use of physiological guidelines of the CTG interpretation seems more reproducible than the traditional assessment, even though the former approach has not been endorsed by the main international scientific societies, which may represent a matter of controversy 26,27,33–36 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Additionally, given that all the CTG traces were evaluated by consensus between three senior obstetricians with specialised expertise in the physiological interpretation of the CTG, such evaluation is expected to be reliable. It should be highlighted that the use of physiological guidelines of the CTG interpretation seems more reproducible than the traditional assessment, even though the former approach has not been endorsed by the main international scientific societies, which may represent a matter of controversy 26,27,33–36 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the last few years, a new approach based on physiology has been proposed for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG. The approach relies on the timing and velocity of onset of the hypoxic insult and not on pattern recognition, and has been demonstrated to be associated with the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting neonatal acidaemia 27 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When multiple indications were listed, deliveries were due to EB indications if at least one of them was consistent with the adopted guidelines. The following were considered EB LP twin delivery indications: preeclampsia with severe features/HELLP syndrome/eclampsia, pPROM in MC twins, FGR with abnormal antenatal testing (abnormal testing included a biophysical pro le of 6/10 or worse, abnormal umbilical artery or ductus venosus Doppler, or coexisting oligohydramnios), vaginal bleeding due to placental abruption, non-reassuring fetal heart tracing (a category III fetal heart tracing requiring immediate delivery) [31], twin to twin transfusion syndrome stage II ore above [32], clinical chorioamnionitis [27], and pre-gestational diabetes mellitus not under metabolic control. Deliveries de ned as non EB included stable patients such as those with mild chronic hypertension [33], prior myomectomy, prior classical cesarean delivery, or mild cholestasis [34] of pregnancy.…”
Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When multiple indications were listed, deliveries were due to EB indications if at least one of them was consistent with the adopted guidelines. The following were considered EB LP twin delivery indications: elective CS in MC twin, preeclampsia with severe features/HELLP syndrome/eclampsia, pPROM in MC twins, FGR with abnormal antenatal testing (abnormal testing included a biophysical profile of 6/10 or worse, abnormal umbilical artery or ductus venosus Doppler, or coexisting oligohydramnios), vaginal bleeding due to placental abruption, non-reassuring fetal heart tracing (a category III fetal heart tracing requiring immediate delivery) [34], twin to twin transfusion syndrome stage II ore above [35], clinical chorioamnionitis [30], and pregestational diabetes mellitus not under metabolic control. Deliveries defined as non EB included stable patients such as those with mild chronic hypertension [18], prior myomectomy, prior classical cesarean delivery, or mild cholestasis [36] of pregnancy.…”
Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%