Performance evaluation of computerized antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Dawes-Redman algorithm at term.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
G Davis Jones, B Albert, W Cooke, M Vatish
{"title":"Performance evaluation of computerized antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Dawes-Redman algorithm at term.","authors":"G Davis Jones, B Albert, W Cooke, M Vatish","doi":"10.1002/uog.29167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of the Dawes-Redman algorithm in identifying fetal wellbeing at term by analyzing 30 years of retrospective clinical data, comparing normal and adverse pregnancy outcomes, evaluating key metrics and testing its performance when used 0-48 h before delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Antepartum fetal heart rate (FHR) traces from term singleton pregnancies at 37 + 0 to 41 + 6 weeks' gestation obtained between 1991 and 2024 were extracted from the Oxford University Hospitals database. Traces with > 30% of their signal information missing or with incomplete Dawes-Redman analyses were excluded. Only traces performed within 48 h prior to delivery were considered. A cohort of pregnancies with subsequent normal pregnancy outcome (NPO) was established using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another cohort of pregnancies with adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) was developed if the neonate experienced at least one of seven APOs after delivery. Propensity score matching (PSM) facilitated a balanced comparison between NPO and APO cohorts using six factors: gestational age at FHR monitoring, fetal sex, maternal body mass index at presentation, maternal age at delivery, parity and time interval between FHR trace and delivery. FHR traces were categorized as either 'criteria met' (indicating fetal wellbeing) or 'criteria not met' (indicating a need for further evaluation) according to the Dawes-Redman algorithm, which informed the evaluation of predictive performance metrics. Performance was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) adjusted for various population risk prevalences of APO.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A balanced dataset of 3316 antepartum FHR traces was developed with PSM (standardized mean difference < 0.10). The Dawes-Redman algorithm showed a high specificity of 90.7% (95% CI, 89.2-92.0%) for ruling out APO. Sensitivity was 18.2% (95% CI, 16.3-20.0%). The NPV varied with the population prevalence of APO and was high in very-low-risk settings (NPV, 99.1% (95% CI, 98.9-99.3%) at 1% APO prevalence) and decreased with increasing risk of APO (NPV, 72.1% (95% CI, 67.7-76.1%) at 30% APO prevalence). Temporal proximity of FHR assessment to delivery indicated robust specificity, which was similar for assessments performed at 0-24 h and 24-48 h prior to delivery (specificity at 0-24 h, 90.8% (95% CI, 88.8-92.7%); specificity at 24-48 h, 90.3% (95% CI, 88.2-92.3%); P = 0.898). Across the different adverse outcomes comprising the APO cohort, the performance of the Dawes-Redman algorithm remained consistent, with high specificity (ranging from 87.7% to 94.7%) and NPVs (ranging from 95.4% to 96.0%), confirming its utility in identifying fetal wellbeing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings indicate that the Dawes-Redman algorithm is effective for its intended purpose: identifying a state of fetal wellbeing. This is evidenced by its high specificity. However, its low sensitivity suggests limitations in its ability to identify fetuses at risk of APO. The predictive accuracy of the algorithm is affected significantly by the prevalence of healthy pregnancies within the population. Clinical interpretation of FHR traces that do not satisfy the 10 Dawes-Redman criteria warrant further expert clinical evaluation. While the algorithm proves reliable for its primary objective, the development of an algorithm optimized for high-risk pregnancy scenarios remains an area of interest for future study. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":"65 2","pages":"191-197"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788457/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29167","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of the Dawes-Redman algorithm in identifying fetal wellbeing at term by analyzing 30 years of retrospective clinical data, comparing normal and adverse pregnancy outcomes, evaluating key metrics and testing its performance when used 0-48 h before delivery.

Methods: Antepartum fetal heart rate (FHR) traces from term singleton pregnancies at 37 + 0 to 41 + 6 weeks' gestation obtained between 1991 and 2024 were extracted from the Oxford University Hospitals database. Traces with > 30% of their signal information missing or with incomplete Dawes-Redman analyses were excluded. Only traces performed within 48 h prior to delivery were considered. A cohort of pregnancies with subsequent normal pregnancy outcome (NPO) was established using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another cohort of pregnancies with adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) was developed if the neonate experienced at least one of seven APOs after delivery. Propensity score matching (PSM) facilitated a balanced comparison between NPO and APO cohorts using six factors: gestational age at FHR monitoring, fetal sex, maternal body mass index at presentation, maternal age at delivery, parity and time interval between FHR trace and delivery. FHR traces were categorized as either 'criteria met' (indicating fetal wellbeing) or 'criteria not met' (indicating a need for further evaluation) according to the Dawes-Redman algorithm, which informed the evaluation of predictive performance metrics. Performance was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) adjusted for various population risk prevalences of APO.

Results: A balanced dataset of 3316 antepartum FHR traces was developed with PSM (standardized mean difference < 0.10). The Dawes-Redman algorithm showed a high specificity of 90.7% (95% CI, 89.2-92.0%) for ruling out APO. Sensitivity was 18.2% (95% CI, 16.3-20.0%). The NPV varied with the population prevalence of APO and was high in very-low-risk settings (NPV, 99.1% (95% CI, 98.9-99.3%) at 1% APO prevalence) and decreased with increasing risk of APO (NPV, 72.1% (95% CI, 67.7-76.1%) at 30% APO prevalence). Temporal proximity of FHR assessment to delivery indicated robust specificity, which was similar for assessments performed at 0-24 h and 24-48 h prior to delivery (specificity at 0-24 h, 90.8% (95% CI, 88.8-92.7%); specificity at 24-48 h, 90.3% (95% CI, 88.2-92.3%); P = 0.898). Across the different adverse outcomes comprising the APO cohort, the performance of the Dawes-Redman algorithm remained consistent, with high specificity (ranging from 87.7% to 94.7%) and NPVs (ranging from 95.4% to 96.0%), confirming its utility in identifying fetal wellbeing.

Conclusion: These findings indicate that the Dawes-Redman algorithm is effective for its intended purpose: identifying a state of fetal wellbeing. This is evidenced by its high specificity. However, its low sensitivity suggests limitations in its ability to identify fetuses at risk of APO. The predictive accuracy of the algorithm is affected significantly by the prevalence of healthy pregnancies within the population. Clinical interpretation of FHR traces that do not satisfy the 10 Dawes-Redman criteria warrant further expert clinical evaluation. While the algorithm proves reliable for its primary objective, the development of an algorithm optimized for high-risk pregnancy scenarios remains an area of interest for future study. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

计算机产前胎儿心率监测的性能评价:足月Dawes-Redman算法。
目的:通过分析30年的回顾性临床资料,比较正常和不良妊娠结局,评估关键指标,并在分娩前0-48小时测试其性能,评估Dawes-Redman算法在识别足月胎儿健康方面的有效性。方法:从牛津大学医院数据库中提取1991 - 2024年妊娠37 + 0 ~ 41 + 6周足月单胎妊娠的产前胎心率(FHR)。有30%的信号信息缺失或Dawes-Redman分析不完整的痕迹被排除。仅考虑在交货前48小时内进行的跟踪。采用严格的纳入和排除标准,建立了一组妊娠结局正常的妊娠队列。如果新生儿在分娩后经历了7种不良妊娠结局(APO)中的至少一种,则研究另一组有不良妊娠结局(APO)的妊娠。倾向评分匹配(PSM)通过六个因素促进了NPO和APO队列之间的平衡比较:FHR监测时的胎龄、胎儿性别、分娩时的母亲体重指数、分娩时的母亲年龄、胎次和FHR追踪到分娩的时间间隔。根据Dawes-Redman算法,FHR痕迹被分类为“符合标准”(表明胎儿健康)或“不符合标准”(表明需要进一步评估),这为预测性能指标的评估提供了信息。采用准确性、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值(NPV)对不同人群的APO风险患病率进行调整,评估疗效。结论:这些发现表明Dawes-Redman算法对于其预期目的是有效的:识别胎儿的健康状态。它的高特异性证明了这一点。然而,它的低灵敏度表明其识别有APO风险的胎儿的能力有限。该算法的预测准确性受到人群中健康怀孕率的显著影响。不符合10个Dawes-Redman标准的FHR痕迹的临床解释需要进一步的专家临床评估。虽然该算法证明其主要目标是可靠的,但针对高危妊娠场景优化算法的开发仍然是未来研究的一个感兴趣的领域。©2025作者。妇产科学超声由John Wiley & Sons Ltd代表国际妇产科学超声学会出版。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
14.10%
发文量
891
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) is the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and is considered the foremost international peer-reviewed journal in the field. It publishes cutting-edge research that is highly relevant to clinical practice, which includes guidelines, expert commentaries, consensus statements, original articles, and systematic reviews. UOG is widely recognized and included in prominent abstract and indexing databases such as Index Medicus and Current Contents.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信