Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System.

OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to test the reliability of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate (FHR) classification system. STUDY DESIGN Individual 15- to 20-minute FHR segments (n = 154) were independently reviewed without clinical data by 3 maternal-fetal medicine examiners and classified by NICHD category (I, II, III). RESULTS Interobserver reliability was moderate (kappa 0.45) and varied by NICHD category (category I moderate [kappa 0.48], category II moderate [kappa 0.44], and category III poor [kappa 0.0]). The intraobserver agreement ranged from substantial to perfect (kappa 0.74-1.0). CONCLUSION Interobserver agreement of 3-Tier FHR classification System was moderate for NICHD categories I and II. Agreement for category III tracings was poor mainly due to lack of agreement regarding absent vs minimal variability.

[1]  P. Nielsen,et al.  Intra‐ and inter‐observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms , 1987 .

[2]  Tiina Luukkaala,et al.  Intrapartum cardiotocography – the dilemma of interpretational variation , 2006, Journal of Perinatal Medicine.

[3]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[4]  A Hasman,et al.  Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. , 1993, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[5]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms , 1997, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  M. Keirse,et al.  OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN ASSESSMENT OF ANTEPARTUM CARDIOTOCOGRAMS , 1978, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  P E Shrout,et al.  Reliability and reproducibility of nonstress test readings. , 1988, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  Sandra Hernandez,et al.  Visual analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings: inter- and intra-observer agreement and impact of knowledge of neonatal outcome , 2005, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[9]  C. Spong,et al.  The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  R D Keith,et al.  A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram , 1995, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  D. Devane,et al.  Midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[12]  E. Blix,et al.  Inter-observer variation in assessment of 845 labor admission tests: Comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts , 2003 .

[13]  A. Lalonde,et al.  The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments. , 1982, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[14]  I. van der Tweel,et al.  Inter‐ and intra‐observer agreement of intrapartum ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram in women monitored by STAN , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  Everett F. Magann,et al.  Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J. Waller,et al.  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. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  T. Weber,et al.  Description, evaluation and clinical decision making according to various fetal heart rate patterns , 1992, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[18]  H. Wallenburg,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. , 1982, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  E. Blix,et al.  Inter‐observer variation in assessment of 845 labour admission tests: comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts , 2003, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[20]  V. Tsatsaris,et al.  Inter‐observer agreement in clinical decision‐making for abnormal cardiotocogram (CTG) during labour: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  Emily F Hamilton,et al.  Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  George A. Macones,et al.  Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles , 2009 .

[23]  K. Mäkikallio,et al.  Interobserver agreement in the assessment of intrapartum automated fetal electrocardiography in singleton pregnancies , 2008, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.