ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2018
New FIGO and Swedish intrapartum cardiotocography classification systems incorporated in the fetal ECG ST analysis (STAN) interpretation algorithm: agreements and discrepancies in cardiotocography classification and evaluation of significant ST events.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An attempt to improve recognition of fetal acidemia by a remodeled intrapartum cardiotocography classification: A case-control study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Midwives' cardiotocograph interpretation and documentation knowledge in a selected Gauteng hospital.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- A comparative evaluation of publicly available large language models in the assessment of CTG traces according to the FIGO criteria.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Review of Decision to Delivery Time Interval for Foetal Distress at a Central Hospital.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- Low sensitivity of the new FIGO classification system for electronic fetal monitoring to identify fetal acidosis in the second stage of labor.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2021Article
- New FIGO and Swedish intrapartum cardiotocography classification systems incorporated in the fetal ECG ST analysis (STAN) interpretation algorithm: agreements and discrepancies in cardiotocography classification and evaluation of significant ST events.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe updated intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) classification system by FIGO in 2015 (FIGO2015) and the FIGO2015-approached classification by the Swedish Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologist in 2017 (SSOG2017) are not harmonized with the fetal ECG ST analysis (STAN) algorithm from 2007 (STAN2007). The study aimed to reveal homogeneity and agreement between the systems in classifying CTG and ST events, and relate them to maternal and perinatal outcomes. MATERIAL AND
methodsAmong CTG traces with ST events, 100 traces originally classified as normal, 100 as suspicious and 100 as pathological were randomly selected from a STAN database and classified by two experts in consensus. Homogeneity and agreement statistics between the CTG classifications were performed. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were evaluated in cases with clinically hidden ST data (n = 151). A two-tailed p < 0.05 was regarded as significant.
resultsFor CTG classes, the heterogeneity was significant between the old and new systems, and agreements were moderate to strong (proportion of agreement, kappa index 0.70-0.86). Between the new classifications, heterogeneity was significant and agreements strong (0.90, 0.92). For significant ST events, heterogeneities were significant and agreements moderate to almost perfect (STAN2007 vs. FIGO2015 0.86, 0.72; STAN2007 vs. SSOG2017 0.92, 0.84; FIGO2015 vs. SSOG2017 0.94, 0.87). Significant ST events occurred more often combined with STAN2007 than with FIGO2015 classification, but not with SSOG2017; correct identification of adverse outcomes was not significantly different between the systems.
conclusionThere are discrepancies in the classification of CTG patterns and significant ST events between the old and new systems. The clinical relevance of the findings remains to be shown.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.