Interobserver Agreement and Reliability of Intrapartum Nonreassuring Cardiotocography and Prediction of Neonatal Acidemia

Zhu-yu Li, Yan Wang, Jian Cai, Peizhen Zhao, Hanqing Chen, Haiyan Liu, L. Shen, Lian Chen, Shufang Li, Yangyu Zhao, Zilian Wang
{"title":"Interobserver Agreement and Reliability of Intrapartum Nonreassuring Cardiotocography and Prediction of Neonatal Acidemia","authors":"Zhu-yu Li, Yan Wang, Jian Cai, Peizhen Zhao, Hanqing Chen, Haiyan Liu, L. Shen, Lian Chen, Shufang Li, Yangyu Zhao, Zilian Wang","doi":"10.1097/FM9.0000000000000146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: To evaluate the agreement and reliability of intrapartum nonreasurring cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation and prediction of neonatal acidemia by obstetricians working in different centers. Methods: A retrospective cohort study involving two tertiary hospitals (The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Perking University Third Hospital) was conducted between 30th September 2018 and 1st April 2019. Six obstetricians from two hospitals with three levels of experience (junior, medium, and senior) reviewed 100 nonreassuring fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings from 1 hour before the onset of abnormalities until delivery. Each reviewer determined the FHR pattern, the baseline, variability, and presence of acceleration, deceleration, sinusoidal pattern, and predicted whether neonatal acidemia and abnormal umbilical arterial pH < 7.1 would occur. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the proportions of agreement (Pa) and the proportion of specific agreement (Pa for each category). Reliability was evaluated with the kappa statistic (k-Light's kappa for n raters) and Gwet's AC1 statistic. Results: Good inter-observer agreement was found in evaluation of most variables (Pa > 0.5), with the exception of early deceleration (Pa = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36,0.43). Reliability was also good among most variables (AC1 > 0.40), except for acceleration, early deceleration, and prediction of neonatal acidemia (AC1 = 0.17, 0.10, and 0.25, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups, except in the identification of accelerations (Pa = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83,0.95; Pa = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41,0.60, and Pa = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25,0.43 in junior, medium and senior groups, respectively) and the prediction of neonatal acidemia (Pa = 0.52, 0.52, and 0.62 in junior, medium and senior groups, respectively), where agreement was highest and lowest in the junior-level group, respectively. The accuracy and sensitivity of the prediction for umbilical artery pH < 7.1 were similar among the three groups, but the specificity was higher in the senior groups (93.68% vs. 92.53% vs. 98.85% in junior, medium and senior groups, P = 0.015). Conclusion: Although we found a good inter-observer agreement in the evaluation of the most basic CTG features and FHR category statistically, it was insufficient to meet the clinical requirements for “no objection” interpretation for FHR tracings. Further specialized training is needed for standardized interpretation of intrapartum FHR tracings.","PeriodicalId":74121,"journal":{"name":"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)","volume":"4 1","pages":"95 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/FM9.0000000000000146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the agreement and reliability of intrapartum nonreasurring cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation and prediction of neonatal acidemia by obstetricians working in different centers. Methods: A retrospective cohort study involving two tertiary hospitals (The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Perking University Third Hospital) was conducted between 30th September 2018 and 1st April 2019. Six obstetricians from two hospitals with three levels of experience (junior, medium, and senior) reviewed 100 nonreassuring fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings from 1 hour before the onset of abnormalities until delivery. Each reviewer determined the FHR pattern, the baseline, variability, and presence of acceleration, deceleration, sinusoidal pattern, and predicted whether neonatal acidemia and abnormal umbilical arterial pH < 7.1 would occur. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the proportions of agreement (Pa) and the proportion of specific agreement (Pa for each category). Reliability was evaluated with the kappa statistic (k-Light's kappa for n raters) and Gwet's AC1 statistic. Results: Good inter-observer agreement was found in evaluation of most variables (Pa > 0.5), with the exception of early deceleration (Pa = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36,0.43). Reliability was also good among most variables (AC1 > 0.40), except for acceleration, early deceleration, and prediction of neonatal acidemia (AC1 = 0.17, 0.10, and 0.25, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups, except in the identification of accelerations (Pa = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83,0.95; Pa = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41,0.60, and Pa = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25,0.43 in junior, medium and senior groups, respectively) and the prediction of neonatal acidemia (Pa = 0.52, 0.52, and 0.62 in junior, medium and senior groups, respectively), where agreement was highest and lowest in the junior-level group, respectively. The accuracy and sensitivity of the prediction for umbilical artery pH < 7.1 were similar among the three groups, but the specificity was higher in the senior groups (93.68% vs. 92.53% vs. 98.85% in junior, medium and senior groups, P = 0.015). Conclusion: Although we found a good inter-observer agreement in the evaluation of the most basic CTG features and FHR category statistically, it was insufficient to meet the clinical requirements for “no objection” interpretation for FHR tracings. Further specialized training is needed for standardized interpretation of intrapartum FHR tracings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
观察者之间的一致性和可靠性产心不安造影和新生儿酸血症预测
摘要目的:评估不同中心产科医生对新生儿酸血症的产时非测量性心脏分娩图(CTG)解释和预测的一致性和可靠性。方法:在2018年9月30日至2019年4月1日期间,对两家三级医院(中山大学附属第一医院和珀金大学第三医院)进行了回顾性队列研究。来自两家医院的六名产科医生具有三个级别的经验(初级、中级和高级),他们审查了从异常发生前1小时到分娩的100次不可靠的胎儿心率(FHR)追踪。每位评审员确定FHR模式、基线、变异性以及加速、减速、正弦曲线模式的存在,并预测新生儿是否出现酸血症和脐动脉pH异常  0.5),除了早期减速(Pa = 0.39,95%置信区间(CI):0.36,0.43)。大多数变量的可靠性也很好(AC1 > 0.40),除了加速、早期减速和预测新生儿酸血症(AC1 = 分别为0.17、0.10和0.25)。除了加速度的识别(Pa = 0.89,95%置信区间:0.83,0.95;帕 = 0.50,95%置信区间:0.41,0.60,Pa = 0.35,95%CI:0.25,0.43)和新生儿酸血症的预测(Pa = 初级组、中级组和高级组分别为0.52、0.52和0.62),其中初级组的一致性分别最高和最低。脐动脉pH值预测的准确性和敏感性 < 7.1在三组中相似,但在老年组中的特异性更高(93.68%对92.53%对98.85%在初级、中级和高级组中,P = 0.015)。结论:尽管我们在统计学上发现观察者之间在评估最基本的CTG特征和FHR类别方面存在良好的一致性,但这不足以满足FHR追踪“无异议”解释的临床要求。需要进一步的专业培训来对产时FHR描记进行标准化解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy Outcomes Associated with Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Infertile Women. Ligation or Occlusion of the Internal Iliac Arteries for the Treatment of Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Why Is This Technique Still Performed? Application of Laparoscopy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pregnancy Complicated with Uterine Myomas Pregnant Women with Severe Factor VII Deficiency Undergoing Cesarean Section Managed with a Short-Term Regimen of Recombinant Factor VIIa Conservative Treatment of Fetal Goitrous Hypothyroidism Due to Thyroglobulin Mutations: A Case Report and Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1