ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Training and Subjective Confidence in CTG Interpretation in Germany: A National Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cardiotocography (CTG) is widely used for intrapartum fetal surveillance, but interpretation remains heterogeneous and prone to interobserver variation. This study explored which CTG classification systems are used in German maternity care, how CTG interpretation is taught, and how confident midwives and obstetricians feel when interpreting CTG traces and fetal scalp blood sampling results. Patients and Methods: We conducted a national pilot exploratory online cross-sectional survey among midwives, obstetricians, and trainees in Germany. The questionnaire covered workplace characteristics, professional experience, CTG education, onboarding, current use of CTG classification systems, and self-rated confidence using an intuitive 0-100 scale. The survey was developed by the research team for this exploratory project and was not formally validated or pilot tested. Analyses were descriptive only. Results: A total of 1,132 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 60.4% midwives, 30.5% obstetricians, and 9.6% students. CTG was routinely used by 95.5% of respondents, and FIGO was the most commonly reported classification system (85.3%). CTG education during formal professional training was reported by 79.7% of midwives but by only 9.5% of junior doctors. Among physicians, CTG knowledge was commonly acquired from colleagues or through workplace experience. Only 39.7% of junior doctors reported systematic onboarding in the delivery room. More than half of junior doctors and 39.4% of specialists had not attended CTG training in the previous five years. Across professional groups, respondents reported only moderate confidence in CTG interpretation. Nearly all participants (99%) expressed a need for structured CTG training in Germany. Conclusion: This exploratory survey suggests considerable variation in CTG education, onboarding, and self-reported confidence among maternity care professionals in Germany. The findings support the need for more structured and recurring CTG education, while underscoring that the present data reflect subjective perceptions rather than objective competence or clinical outcomes.
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.