Agreement on intrapartum cardiotocogram recordings between expert obstetricians.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate obstetricians' inter- and intra-observer agreement on intrapartum cardiotocogram (CTG) recordings and to examine obstetricians' evaluations with respect to umbilical artery pH and base deficit. METHODS Nine experienced obstetricians annotated 634 intrapartum CTG recordings. The evaluation of each recording was divided into four steps: evaluation of two 30-minute windows in the first stage of labour, evaluation of one window in the second stage of labour and labour outcome prediction. The complete set of evaluations used for this experiment is available online. The inter- and intra-observer agreement was evaluated using proportion of agreement and kappa coefficient. Clinicians' sensitivity and specificity was computed with respect to umbilical artery pH, base deficit and to Apgar score at the fifth minute. RESULTS The overall proportion of agreement between clinicians reached 48% with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (CI: 47-50). Regarding the different classes, proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (CI: 54-60) for normal to 41% (CI: 36-46) for pathological class. The sensitivity of clinicians' majority vote to objective outcome was 39% (CI: 16-63) for the umbilical artery base deficit and 27% (CI: 16-42) for pH. The specificity was 89% (CI: 86-92) for both types of objective outcome. CONCLUSIONS The reported inter-/intra-observer variability is large and this holds irrespective of clinicians' experience or work place. The results support the need of modernized guidelines for CTG evaluation and/or objectivization and repeatability by introduction of a computerized approach that could standardize the process of CTG evaluation within the delivery ward.

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

[2]  Ernest Graham,et al.  Graded classification of fetal heart rate tracings: association with neonatal metabolic acidosis and neurologic morbidity. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  Janusz Jezewski,et al.  Centralised Fetal Monitoring System with Hardware-Based Data Flow Control , 2006 .

[4]  Joakim Andén,et al.  Scattering Transform for Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Variability Fractal Analysis: A Case-Control Study , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  J. Parer,et al.  A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  J. Parer,et al.  The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development report on fetal heart rate monitoring. , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  O. Siggaard‐Andersen,et al.  The oxygen status of fetal blood , 1995, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[10]  João Bernardes,et al.  The persistent challenge of foetal heart rate monitoring , 2010, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[11]  João Bernardes,et al.  Agreement studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: inappropriateness, controversies and consequences , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  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.

[13]  D. Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Adjunctive technologies , 2015, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[14]  Diogo Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  Human factors affecting the interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings: an update , 2012, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[15]  Leah Antoniewicz,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  Bradley Efron,et al.  Missing Data, Imputation, and the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[17]  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.

[18]  Philip A Warrick,et al.  New perspectives in electronic fetal surveillance , 2013, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[19]  Adam Gacek,et al.  Fetal heart rate variability: clinical experts versus computerized system interpretation , 2002, Proceedings of the Second Joint 24th Annual Conference and the Annual Fall Meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society] [Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[20]  K. Greene,et al.  The development and evaluation of a computer‐assisted teaching programme for intrapartum fetal monitoring , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Twenty‐five years after the FIGO guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring: Time for a simplified approach? , 2010, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[22]  F. Mecacci,et al.  Comparison of five classification systems for interpreting electronic fetal monitoring in predicting neonatal status at birth , 2013, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[23]  S. Arulkumaran,et al.  Review of the first 1502 cases of ECG‐ST waveform analysis during labour in a teaching hospital , 2007 .

[24]  David A Miller,et al.  Three-tier versus five-tier fetal heart rate classification systems. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  J. Fleiss Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[26]  Lenka Lhotská,et al.  Open access intrapartum CTG database , 2014, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[27]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Complexity and categorical analysis may improve the interpretation of agreement studies using continuous variables. , 2011, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[28]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Lenka Lhotská,et al.  Analysis of obstetricians' decision making on CTG recordings , 2014, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[30]  M Daumer,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of intrapartum computerised FIGO criteria for cardiotocography and fetal scalp pH during labour: multicentre, observational study , 2008, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

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

[32]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[33]  S J Payne,et al.  Phase‐rectified signal averaging for intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring is related to acidaemia at birth , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

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

[35]  Diogo Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  Omniview-SisPorto 3.5 - a central fetal monitoring station with online alerts based on computerized cardiotocogram+ST event analysis. , 2008, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[36]  Thomas P Sartwelle,et al.  Electronic Fetal Monitoring: A Bridge Too Far , 2012, The Journal of legal medicine.

[37]  Jaclyn Coletta,et al.  The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[38]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[39]  A. Tranquilli Fetal heart rate in the second stage of labor: recording, reading, interpreting and acting , 2012, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[40]  C. Pehrson,et al.  Evaluation and impact of cardiotocography training programmes: a systematic review , 2011, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[41]  João Bernardes,et al.  Entropy and compression: two measures of complexity. , 2013, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.