分娩过程中 CTG 分类和临床决策的观察者间一致性:STAN2007 和 STAN2022 分类的比较。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102874
Delphine Duchanois , Lola Loussert , Anais Provendier , Carole Brouet , Maeva Chavin , Louise Paret , Paul Guerby , Virginie Ehlinger , Christophe Vayssière
{"title":"分娩过程中 CTG 分类和临床决策的观察者间一致性:STAN2007 和 STAN2022 分类的比较。","authors":"Delphine Duchanois ,&nbsp;Lola Loussert ,&nbsp;Anais Provendier ,&nbsp;Carole Brouet ,&nbsp;Maeva Chavin ,&nbsp;Louise Paret ,&nbsp;Paul Guerby ,&nbsp;Virginie Ehlinger ,&nbsp;Christophe Vayssière","doi":"10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>ST analysis during labour requires the classification of CTG traces in order to help clinical decisions. The usual STAN classification is based on the FIGO 1987 classification, modified in 2007. New STAN guidelines adapted to physiology-based interpretation have been proposed in 2022. This study compares the interobserver agreement of CTG classification and clinical decisions making, and the ease of use following the 2022 and 2007 STAN guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Thirty CTG traces from STAN monitors were selected from a local French database and analysed (CTG classification, clinical decision making) by six observers with different levels of experience in two sessions three months apart. Observers followed the STAN2007 and the STAN2022 guidelines in the first and in the second sessions respectively. Weighted kappa (primary outcome), proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers, and percent agreement (secondary outcomes) were estimated. At the end of the second session observers rated their satisfaction, ease of use and which guidelines they preferred.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The interobserver agreement for CTG classification were comparable when following STAN2007 and STAN2022 guidelines (weighted kappa 0.57 versus 0.58, <em>P</em> = 0.91, moderate agreement), but a higher proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers and a higher percent agreement were obtained when following STAN2022 compared to STAN2007 guidelines (complete agreement 50 % versus 20 % respectively, <em>P</em> = 0.01; percentage of agreement 72 % vs 55 %, <em>P</em> = 0.006). Interobserver agreement for clinical decisions did not differ when following STAN2007 or STAN2022 guidelines. Satisfaction scores were higher with STAN2022 guidelines, but not significantly (<em>P</em> = 0.052). All 6 observers stated that they preferred to use the STAN2022 guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Interobserver agreement is comparable between STAN2022 and STAN2007 for CTG classification in labour and clinical decision making. However, complete agreement and percent agreement are in favour of STAN 2022 for CTG classification.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interobserver agreement in CTG classification and clinical decision during labour: a comparison between STAN2007 and STAN2022 classifications\",\"authors\":\"Delphine Duchanois ,&nbsp;Lola Loussert ,&nbsp;Anais Provendier ,&nbsp;Carole Brouet ,&nbsp;Maeva Chavin ,&nbsp;Louise Paret ,&nbsp;Paul Guerby ,&nbsp;Virginie Ehlinger ,&nbsp;Christophe Vayssière\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>ST analysis during labour requires the classification of CTG traces in order to help clinical decisions. The usual STAN classification is based on the FIGO 1987 classification, modified in 2007. New STAN guidelines adapted to physiology-based interpretation have been proposed in 2022. This study compares the interobserver agreement of CTG classification and clinical decisions making, and the ease of use following the 2022 and 2007 STAN guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>Thirty CTG traces from STAN monitors were selected from a local French database and analysed (CTG classification, clinical decision making) by six observers with different levels of experience in two sessions three months apart. Observers followed the STAN2007 and the STAN2022 guidelines in the first and in the second sessions respectively. Weighted kappa (primary outcome), proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers, and percent agreement (secondary outcomes) were estimated. At the end of the second session observers rated their satisfaction, ease of use and which guidelines they preferred.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The interobserver agreement for CTG classification were comparable when following STAN2007 and STAN2022 guidelines (weighted kappa 0.57 versus 0.58, <em>P</em> = 0.91, moderate agreement), but a higher proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers and a higher percent agreement were obtained when following STAN2022 compared to STAN2007 guidelines (complete agreement 50 % versus 20 % respectively, <em>P</em> = 0.01; percentage of agreement 72 % vs 55 %, <em>P</em> = 0.006). Interobserver agreement for clinical decisions did not differ when following STAN2007 or STAN2022 guidelines. Satisfaction scores were higher with STAN2022 guidelines, but not significantly (<em>P</em> = 0.052). All 6 observers stated that they preferred to use the STAN2022 guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Interobserver agreement is comparable between STAN2022 and STAN2007 for CTG classification in labour and clinical decision making. However, complete agreement and percent agreement are in favour of STAN 2022 for CTG classification.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784724001533\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784724001533","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分娩过程中的 ST 分析需要对 CTG 曲线进行分类,以帮助临床决策。通常的 STAN 分类以 FIGO 1987 年的分类为基础,并于 2007 年进行了修改。2022 年提出了新的 STAN 指南,以适应基于生理学的解释。本研究比较了 CTG 分类和临床决策的观察者间一致性,以及 2022 年和 2007 年 STAN 指南的易用性:从法国当地的数据库中选取了 30 个 STAN 监护仪的 CTG 曲线,由六名具有不同经验水平的观察者进行分析(CTG 分类、临床决策),两次分析相隔三个月。观察者在第一次和第二次会议中分别遵循 STAN2007 和 STAN2022 指南。对加权卡帕(主要结果)、6 名观察员完全一致的比例和一致百分比(次要结果)进行了估算。在第二个环节结束时,观察员对其满意度、易用性和他们更喜欢的指南进行评分:根据 STAN2007 和 STAN2022 指南进行 CTG 分类时,观察者之间的一致性相当(加权卡帕为 0.57 对 0.58,P=0.91,中度一致),但与 STAN2007 指南相比,根据 STAN2022 指南进行 CTG 分类时,6 名观察者之间的完全一致比例更高,一致百分比更高(完全一致比例分别为 50%对 20%,P=0.01;一致百分比为 72% 对 55%,P=0.006)。在遵循 STAN2007 或 STAN2022 指南时,临床决策的观察者间一致性没有差异。STAN2022指南的满意度评分更高,但并不显著(P=0.052)。所有 6 位观察员都表示他们更愿意使用 STAN2022 指南:结论:在分娩 CTG 分类和临床决策方面,STAN2022 和 STAN2007 的观察者间一致性相当。然而,在 CTG 分类方面,STAN2022 的完全一致率和一致率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Interobserver agreement in CTG classification and clinical decision during labour: a comparison between STAN2007 and STAN2022 classifications
ST analysis during labour requires the classification of CTG traces in order to help clinical decisions. The usual STAN classification is based on the FIGO 1987 classification, modified in 2007. New STAN guidelines adapted to physiology-based interpretation have been proposed in 2022. This study compares the interobserver agreement of CTG classification and clinical decisions making, and the ease of use following the 2022 and 2007 STAN guidelines.

Material and Methods

Thirty CTG traces from STAN monitors were selected from a local French database and analysed (CTG classification, clinical decision making) by six observers with different levels of experience in two sessions three months apart. Observers followed the STAN2007 and the STAN2022 guidelines in the first and in the second sessions respectively. Weighted kappa (primary outcome), proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers, and percent agreement (secondary outcomes) were estimated. At the end of the second session observers rated their satisfaction, ease of use and which guidelines they preferred.

Results

The interobserver agreement for CTG classification were comparable when following STAN2007 and STAN2022 guidelines (weighted kappa 0.57 versus 0.58, P = 0.91, moderate agreement), but a higher proportion of complete agreement within the 6 observers and a higher percent agreement were obtained when following STAN2022 compared to STAN2007 guidelines (complete agreement 50 % versus 20 % respectively, P = 0.01; percentage of agreement 72 % vs 55 %, P = 0.006). Interobserver agreement for clinical decisions did not differ when following STAN2007 or STAN2022 guidelines. Satisfaction scores were higher with STAN2022 guidelines, but not significantly (P = 0.052). All 6 observers stated that they preferred to use the STAN2022 guidelines.

Conclusion

Interobserver agreement is comparable between STAN2022 and STAN2007 for CTG classification in labour and clinical decision making. However, complete agreement and percent agreement are in favour of STAN 2022 for CTG classification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
210
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Formerly known as Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction is the official Academic publication of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français / CNGOF). J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod publishes monthly, in English, research papers and techniques in the fields of Gynecology, Obstetrics, Neonatology and Human Reproduction: (guest) editorials, original articles, reviews, updates, technical notes, case reports, letters to the editor and guidelines. Original works include clinical or laboratory investigations and clinical or equipment reports. Reviews include narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Caracteristics of women presenting with Chronic Histiocytic Intervillositis during pregnancy: a case-control study. Anti N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor encephalitis during pregnancy: a case report. Interobserver agreement in CTG classification and clinical decision during labour: a comparison between STAN2007 and STAN2022 classifications Induction of labor in late-term pregnancy: amniotomy plus early oxytocin perfusion versus amniotomy plus oxytocin perfusion delayed by 24 h
×
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