ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2025
Interobserver agreement: Individual CTG features show better agreement among investigators than the overall CTG assessment in cases of meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this investigation was to evaluate the interobserver agreement between different investigators on selected cardiotocogram (CTG) parameters.
methodsMedical records were selected from birth histories of cephalic deliveries with meconium-stained amniotic fluid. A total of 84 CTGs were recorded and analyzed by six clinicians. Agreement metrics such as proportion of agreement (Pa) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and reliability indices calculated via the Fleiss kappa statistic, were employed to quantify interobserver consistency.
resultsCTG parameters baseline rate, variability, presence or absence of decelerations, and total time of decelerations demonstrated good or moderate interobserver agreement, kappa ranged 0.47-0.80, indicating fairly high consistency in estimating these parameters. The kappa coefficients for these features ranged from moderate to very good levels. The assessment of accelerations exhibited only weak to moderate concordance (kappa: 0.29-0.47). Evaluation of the deceleration type yielded the lowest agreement. The overall categorization of CTGs into categories exhibited only poor to moderate interobserver concordance (Fleiss kappa: 0.19-0.44).
conclusionsCTG parameters - baseline rate, variability, presence/absence of decelerations, and total width of decelerations in a 30-minute CTG interval - are features that can be interpreted with a high degree of objectivity and agreement with appropriate training, even without clinical experience. Since the categorization of CTGs into separate categories (normal, suspicious, and pathological) has a poor to moderate level of agreement, it indicates a need for discussion on whether it is worth continuing to rely on such CTG categorical stratification or base CTG judgements on more objective and high agreement parameters.
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.