ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Enhancing agreement in cardiotocography interpretation between midwives and obstetricians through a rule-based AI program: A comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether a rule-based artificial intelligence (AI) program can enhance interrater agreement in cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation between nurse-midwives and obstetricians.
methodsCTG data from 50 singleton pregnancies at ≥32 weeks of gestation were used to develop a rule-based AI program based on National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 2008 guidelines, with content validity confirmed (item-objective congruence = 0.85). A 22-item CTG test representing NICHD categories I to III was generated using a local obstetrician consensus reference standard, defined as ≥70% agreement among seven obstetricians. Twenty nurse-midwives interpreted the same CTG tracings twice, before and after AI support, with a 1- to 2-month interval, while obstetricians completed the test once to establish the reference standard. Interrater agreement was evaluated relative to this local expert consensus, rather than neonatal outcomes or an external gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa for ordinal data and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for continuous data. Interpretation time and user satisfaction were also assessed.
resultsAI support significantly improved agreement across all ordinal parameters. Agreement on NICHD category interpretation increased from moderate (κ = 0.548) to almost perfect (κ = 0.906, P < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for baseline variability (κ = 0.459 to 0.853), fetal heart rate category (κ = 0.669 to 0.868), prolonged decelerations (κ = 0.719 to 0.963), and acceleration count (κ = 0.482 to 0.723). ICCs for variable and late decelerations improved from poor to good (0.328 to 0.725 and 0.304 to 0.676, respectively), whereas early decelerations remained low. Interpretation time decreased by a mean of 6.7 min with AI support (P < 0.001). Most midwives reported high satisfaction, with 70% strongly agreeing on its clinical utility.
conclusionThis exploratory study suggests that a rule-based AI program was associated with improved interrater agreement between midwives and obstetricians and reduced CTG interpretation time, with high user satisfaction. These preliminary findings warrant confirmation in larger studies to assess generalizability and to determine whether improved agreement translates into better perinatal outcomes, which were not assessed in this study.
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.