Using Peer Review to Measure Competence in Fetal Heart Monitoring Practice

Training in the use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography: systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…We identified 64 studies that met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1 ) reported across 65 papers (two papers reported different outcomes from the same study). 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , …”

“…Four of the included studies (one non‐randomised controlled trial, two pre‐post studies and a cross‐sectional survey) considered impact of training on inter‐observer agreement on CTG interpretation (Table S2 ), addressing the known problem of variability in classification of traces. 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 Where reported, delivery of training involved short‐term classroom and practical sessions, 75 audit and review, 44 or online training. 50 All four reported that training improved inter‐observer agreement.…”

“…We identified 64 studies that met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1) reported across 65 papers (two papers reported different outcomes from the same study) 23–86 . One relevant study protocol was not included because the study is still ongoing 87 .…”

“…45,62,63,71,73 The actual numbers participating in each of the studies were often not reported or were unclear. 26,41,44,45,49,50,53,60,[62][63][64][69][70][71][72][73][74]77,78,84 Where participant numbers were reported, they varied from six 51,75 to 4439 81 individuals.…”