Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25437442›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

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

Chen-Yu Chen, Chun Yu, Chia-Chen Chang, Chii-Wann Lin

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chen-Yu ChenInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Mackay Medical College, Taipei, Taiwan; Mackay Junior College of Medicine, Nursing, and Management, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chun YuInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chia-Chen ChangInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chii-Wann LinInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare a novel computerized analysis program with visual cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation results.

methodsSixty-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.

resultsThere 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).

conclusionsThis computerized analysis program is not inferior to visual interpretation, may improve interobserver variations, and could play a vital role in prenatal telemedicine.

Indexed as

CardiotocographyFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedObserver VariationPregnancyTelemedicineUterine Contraction

Identifiers

PMID25437442
PMCPMC4249819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.