ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2026
Midwives' cardiotocograph interpretation and documentation knowledge in a selected Gauteng hospital.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiotocography (CTG) is a globally used intrapartum monitoring tool to assess the foetal heart rate and the related responses to the physiology of the uterine action. The intrapartum foetal monitoring is the primary responsibility of the midwives caring for the woman in labour. Midwives' knowledge and understanding of CTG traces and interpretation ensure timely responses to pathological findings, thus ensuring positive foetal and neonatal outcomes. Aim: The study aimed to assess the midwives' knowledge of cardiotocograph interpretation and documentation in a selected hospital in Gauteng. Setting: The data were collected in a selected secondary hospital, a referral hospital for the midwife-led obstetric units and district hospitals in the Gauteng province. Methods: The study employed a quantitative retrospective research design, utilising a checklist to analyse patients' past medical records - this retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate midwives' knowledge in interpreting CTG. Results: A review of 336 CTG case records analysed five criteria: baseline heart rate, variability, decelerations, accelerations, and overall trace assessment. Significant discrepancies in record-keeping were found between midwives and researchers. Researchers maintained complete records and interpretations for all criteria, whereas midwives exhibited considerable gaps, ranging from 31% to 100% across the CTG criteria. Conclusion: Analysis indicates a substantial gap in CTG documentation by midwives compared to researchers. Contribution: Midwives exhibiting significant data omissions that may affect intrapartum care quality and clinical decisions.
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.