首页> 外文期刊>BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology >Inter-observer agreement in clinical decision-making for abnormal cardiotocogram (CTG) during labour: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN.
【24h】

Inter-observer agreement in clinical decision-making for abnormal cardiotocogram (CTG) during labour: a comparison between CTG and CTG plus STAN.

机译:产程期间异常心电图(CTG)的临床决策中观察者之间的共识:CTG与CTG和STAN的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare inter-observer agreement for clinical decision-making with cardiotocography (CTG) and combined CTG with ST-segment analysis (STAN). DESIGN: Experimental study. SETTING: Three hospital obstetrics departments in France. POPULATION: Thirty randomly selected nonreassuring CTG recordings during labour of women with singleton term pregnancies in cephalic position. METHODS: Seven obstetricians independently assessed the tracings, displayed in a random order on their computers, on two separate sessions, the first without and the second with STAN information. The observers received clinical information about the labour as the tracings continued and were asked whether they would intervene. For analysis, we considered that intervention was justified for the neonates with pH < 7.05 and that nonintervention was justified for those with a pH > 7.10 after spontaneous delivery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kappa values and rates of inter-observer agreement for intervention and for nonintervention. RESULTS: Kappa for inter-observer agreement was 0.50 (0.29-0.69) with CTG, and 0.67 (0.48-0.81) with CTG + STAN. The rate of inter-observer agreement for the decision to intervene was 73% (68-77%) with CTG and 70% (66-75%) with CTG + STAN (P = 0.4), and for the nonintervention decision it was 48% (42-54%) and 69% (64-74%), respectively (P < 0.0001). The rate of agreement for justified intervention was 94% (91-97%) with CTG and 85% (80-90%) with CTG + STAN (P < 0.001) and for justified nonintervention, 56% (48-63%) with CTG and 84% (79-89%) with CTG + STAN (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In cases with abnormal CTG, ST analysis may improve consistency in clinical decision-making and decrease unnecessary interventions, but may also lead on rare occasions to unjustified decisions not to intervene.
机译:目的:比较心电图(CTG)和CTG结合ST段分析(STAN)的临床观察者之间的共识。设计:实验研究。地点:法国的三个医院妇产科。人口:单胎足月妊娠头位妇女在分娩时随机选择了30条令人不安的CTG记录。方法:七名妇产科医生在两个单独的会话中独立评估了踪迹,并以随机顺序在计算机上显示了踪迹,第一个不包含STAN信息,第二个包含STAN信息。随着追踪的进行,观察者收到了有关人工的临床信息,并被询问是否会介入。为了进行分析,我们认为对pH <7.05的新生儿进行干预是合理的,而对pH> 7.10的新生儿在自然分娩后进行不干预是合理的。主要观察指标:卡伯值和观察员之间就干预和不干预达成的协议的比率。结果:观察者间协议的Kappa与CTG分别为0.50(0.29-0.69),而CTG + STAN为0.67(0.48-0.81)。对于CTG,干预者之间的同意决定率为73%(68-77%),对于CTG + STAN,干预者之间的同意率为70%(66-75%)(P = 0.4),对于不干预者,该比例为48 %(42-54%)和69%(64-74%)(P <0.0001)。 CTG合理干预的同意率为94%(91-97%),CTG + STAN为85%(80-90%)(P <0.001),合理干预的同意率为56%(48-63%) CTG和84%(79-89%)的患者使用CTG + STAN(P <0.0001)。结论:在CTG异常的情况下,ST分析可提高临床决策的一致性并减少不必要的干预措施,但在极少数情况下也可能导致不合理的决策不予干预。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号