ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Comparison of fetal heart rate baseline estimation by the cardiotocograph network and clinicians: a multidatabase retrospective assessment study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MIRF-Net: A Multimodal Data Fusion Framework for Intrapartum Fetal Risk Assessment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated analysis of fetal heart rate baseline/acceleration/deceleration using MTU-Net3 + model.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Article
- Editorial: New technologies improve maternal and newborn safety.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Article
- A multimodal model in the prediction of the delivery mode using data from a digital twin-empowered labor monitoring system.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare the fetal heart rate (FHR) baseline predicted by the cardiotocograph network (CTGNet) with that estimated by clinicians. Material and methods: A total of 1,267 FHR recordings acquired with different electrical fetal monitors (EFM) were collected from five datasets: 84 FHR recordings acquired with F15 EFM (Edan, Shenzhen, China) from the Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, 331 FHR recordings acquired with SRF618B5 EFM (Sanrui, Guangzhou, China), 234 FHR recordings acquired with F3 EFM (Lian-Med, Guangzhou, China) from the NanFang Hospital of Southen Medical University, 552 cardiotocographys (CTG) recorded using STAN S21 and S31 (Neoventa Medical, Mölndal, Sweden) and Avalon FM40 and FM50 (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) from the University Hospital in Brno, Czech Republic, and 66 FHR recordings acquired using Avalon FM50 fetal monitor (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) at St Vincent de Paul Hospital (Lille, France). Each FHR baseline was estimated by clinicians and CTGNet, respectively. And agreement between CTGNet and clinicians was evaluated using the kappa statistics, intra-class correlation coefficient, and the limits of agreement. Results: The number of differences <3 beats per minute (bpm), 3-5 bpm, 5-10 bpm and ≥10 bpm, is 64.88%, 15.94%, 14.44% and 4.74%, respectively. Kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficient are 0.873 and 0.969, respectively. Limits of agreement are -6.81 and 7.48 (mean difference: 0.36 and standard deviation: 3.64). Conclusion: An excellent agreement was found between CTGNet and clinicians in the baseline estimation from FHR recordings with different signal loss rates.
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.