Comparison of a novel computerized analysis program and visual interpretation of cardiotocography

14Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare a novel computerized analysis program with visual cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation results. Methods: Sixty-two intrapartum CTG tracings with 20- to 30-minute sections were independently interpreted using a novel computerized analysis program, as well as the visual interpretations of eight obstetricians, to evaluate the baseline fetal heart rate (FHR), baseline FHR variability, number of accelerations, number/type of decelerations, uterine contraction (UC) frequency, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 3-Tier FHR classification system. Results: There was no significant difference in interobserver variation after adding the components of computerized analysis to results from the obstetricians' visual interpretations, with excellent agreement for the baseline FHR (ICC 0.91), the number of accelerations (ICC 0.85), UC frequency (ICC 0.97), and NICHD category I (kappa statistic 0.91); good agreement for baseline variability (kappa statistic 0.68), the numbers of early decelerations (ICC 0.78) and late decelerations (ICC 0.67), category II (kappa statistic 0.78), and overall categories (kappa statistic 0.80); and moderate agreement for the number of variable decelerations (ICC 0.60), and category III (kappa statistic 0.50). Conclusions: This computerized analysis program is not inferior to visual interpretation, may improve interobserver variations, and could play a vital role in prenatal telemedicine.

Figures

  • Figure 1. A flow diagram of this study.
  • Table 1. Characteristics of fetal heart rates and the 3-tier categorization system.
  • Figure 2. A flow diagram of the software algorithm.
  • Figure 3. An example of the fetal heart rate tracings: (a) the original pattern; (b) the pattern after deleting the lost signal components, eliminating the noise, and filling in using linear interpolation.
  • Table 2. Characteristics of 62 cardiotocography tracings obtained by computerized analysis and visual interpretations by eight obstetricians.
  • Table 3. Interobserver variations between the results of the eight obstetricians’ visual interpretations and the computerized analysis.
  • Table 4. Intraclass correlation coefficients or kappa statistics (*) between the results from the computerized analysis and the visual interpretations of eight individual obstetricians.
  • Table 5. Comparison of category III between computerized analysis and visual interpretation.

References Powered by Scopus

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

60468Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability

19109Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: Update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines

547Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the interpretation of intrapartum fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A framework for intelligent analysis of digital cardiotocographic signals from IoMT-based foetal monitoring

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cardiotocography and the evolution into computerised cardiotocography in the management of intrauterine growth restriction

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, C. Y., Yu, C., Chang, C. C., & Lin, C. W. (2014). Comparison of a novel computerized analysis program and visual interpretation of cardiotocography. PLoS ONE, 9(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112296

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

72%

Researcher 4

16%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

12%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 8

40%

Engineering 5

25%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4

20%

Psychology 3

15%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 31

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0