助产士使用现行的 FIGO 和基于生理学的指南进行产前心脏排卵造影判读的观察者间一致性。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Serena Neri, Ruben Ramirez Zegarra, Marialuigia Dininno, Elvira Di Pasquo, Sara Tagliaferri, Tullio Ghi
{"title":"助产士使用现行的 FIGO 和基于生理学的指南进行产前心脏排卵造影判读的观察者间一致性。","authors":"Serena Neri, Ruben Ramirez Zegarra, Marialuigia Dininno, Elvira Di Pasquo, Sara Tagliaferri, Tullio Ghi","doi":"10.1080/14767058.2024.2425758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the interobserver agreement among midwives for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces, using both the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-center, observational study conducted at the Maternity Hospital of the University of Parma, Italy, between November 2022 and July 2023. We selected 100 nonconsecutive intrapartum CTG traces from women undergoing operative delivery (cesarean or instrumental vaginal delivery). Participating midwives received the last 60 min of CTG recording prior to the decision for an operative delivery was made. Five midwives with different professional experience classified the CTG tracing according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines at the time of the decision for the operative delivery. Each midwife was categorized as senior or junior if her clinical experience was equal or more or less than 5 years. All participating midwives were blinded to the demographic and clinical variables of each case, as well as to the labor and neonatal outcome. The main outcome of the study was the interobserver agreement among the 5 midwives with either guideline. The secondary outcome was the interobserver agreement based on clinical experience. The agreement between the observers was estimated through the Krippendorff's alpha statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The interobserver agreement for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces according to the 2015 FIGO guideline was in the upper limit of the \"unacceptable\" classification, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.632 (95% CI, 0.545-0.723). The interobserver agreement of the physiology-based CTG guideline was classified as \"unacceptable\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.359 (95% CI, 0.125-0.582). The interobserver agreement among senior midwives according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines was considered as \"tentative acceptable agreement\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.724 (95% CI, 0.636-0.805). Among junior midwives, the interobserver agreement according to the latter guideline was classified as \"unacceptable\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.569 (95% CI, 0.359-0.751). Using the physiology-based guideline, the interobserver agreement of the senior midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.493 (95% CI, 0.320-0.623) - and \"junior\" midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.359 (95% CI, 0.100-0.581) - were considered both \"unacceptable\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that intrapartum CTG interpretation is characterized by an overall unacceptable level of interobserver agreement among midwives, with the 2015 FIGO guidelines showing better agreement compared to physiology-based guidelines. The interpretation of intrapartum CTG by \"senior\" midwives using the 2015 FIGO guidelines showed the highest, interobserver agreement, indicating a \"tentative acceptable agreement\".</p>","PeriodicalId":50146,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interobserver agreement of intrapartum cardiotocography interpretation by midwives using current FIGO and physiology-based guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Serena Neri, Ruben Ramirez Zegarra, Marialuigia Dininno, Elvira Di Pasquo, Sara Tagliaferri, Tullio Ghi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14767058.2024.2425758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the interobserver agreement among midwives for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces, using both the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-center, observational study conducted at the Maternity Hospital of the University of Parma, Italy, between November 2022 and July 2023. We selected 100 nonconsecutive intrapartum CTG traces from women undergoing operative delivery (cesarean or instrumental vaginal delivery). Participating midwives received the last 60 min of CTG recording prior to the decision for an operative delivery was made. Five midwives with different professional experience classified the CTG tracing according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines at the time of the decision for the operative delivery. Each midwife was categorized as senior or junior if her clinical experience was equal or more or less than 5 years. All participating midwives were blinded to the demographic and clinical variables of each case, as well as to the labor and neonatal outcome. The main outcome of the study was the interobserver agreement among the 5 midwives with either guideline. The secondary outcome was the interobserver agreement based on clinical experience. The agreement between the observers was estimated through the Krippendorff's alpha statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The interobserver agreement for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces according to the 2015 FIGO guideline was in the upper limit of the \\\"unacceptable\\\" classification, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.632 (95% CI, 0.545-0.723). The interobserver agreement of the physiology-based CTG guideline was classified as \\\"unacceptable\\\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.359 (95% CI, 0.125-0.582). The interobserver agreement among senior midwives according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines was considered as \\\"tentative acceptable agreement\\\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.724 (95% CI, 0.636-0.805). Among junior midwives, the interobserver agreement according to the latter guideline was classified as \\\"unacceptable\\\" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.569 (95% CI, 0.359-0.751). Using the physiology-based guideline, the interobserver agreement of the senior midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.493 (95% CI, 0.320-0.623) - and \\\"junior\\\" midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.359 (95% CI, 0.100-0.581) - were considered both \\\"unacceptable\\\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that intrapartum CTG interpretation is characterized by an overall unacceptable level of interobserver agreement among midwives, with the 2015 FIGO guidelines showing better agreement compared to physiology-based guidelines. The interpretation of intrapartum CTG by \\\"senior\\\" midwives using the 2015 FIGO guidelines showed the highest, interobserver agreement, indicating a \\\"tentative acceptable agreement\\\".</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2024.2425758\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2024.2425758","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究助产士在使用 2015 年 FIGO 指南和基于生理学的指南解读产中 CTG 曲线时的观察者间一致性:2022 年 11 月至 2023 年 7 月期间在意大利帕尔马大学产科医院进行的回顾性、单中心观察研究。我们从接受手术分娩(剖宫产或器械性阴道分娩)的产妇中选取了 100 例非连续性产前 CTG 追踪。参与研究的助产士接收了决定手术分娩前最后 60 分钟的 CTG 记录。五名具有不同专业经验的助产士在决定手术分娩时,根据 2015 年 FIGO 指南和基于生理学的指南对 CTG 追踪进行了分类。如果每位助产士的临床经验等于或大于或小于 5 年,则将其分为高级和初级。所有参与研究的助产士对每个病例的人口统计学变量、临床变量以及分娩和新生儿结局都是盲法。研究的主要结果是 5 名助产士对任一指南的观察者间一致性。次要结果是基于临床经验的观察者之间的一致性。观察者之间的一致性是通过克里彭多夫α统计来估算的:结果:根据2015年FIGO指南对产中CTG描记进行解读时,观察者之间的一致性处于 "不可接受 "等级的上限,克里彭多夫α值为0.632(95% CI,0.545-0.723)。基于生理学的 CTG 指南的观察者间一致性被列为 "不可接受",克里彭多夫α值为 0.359(95% CI,0.125-0.582)。根据2015年FIGO指南,资深助产士的观察者间一致性被视为 "暂时可接受的一致性",克里彭多夫α值为0.724(95% CI,0.636-0.805)。在初级助产士中,根据后一种指南,观察者之间的一致性被归类为 "不可接受",克里彭多夫α值为 0.569(95% CI,0.359-0.751)。使用基于生理学的指南,资深助产士(克里彭多夫α为0.493(95% CI,0.320-0.623))和 "初级 "助产士(克里彭多夫α为0.359(95% CI,0.100-0.581))的观察者间一致性均被视为 "不可接受":我们的研究表明,助产士对产程中 CTG 的判读在总体上存在不可接受的观察者间一致性,而 2015 年 FIGO 指南与基于生理学的指南相比显示出更好的一致性。"资深 "助产士使用 2015 FIGO 指南对产中 CTG 的解读显示出最高的观察者间一致性,表明 "初步可接受的一致性"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interobserver agreement of intrapartum cardiotocography interpretation by midwives using current FIGO and physiology-based guidelines.

Objectives: To investigate the interobserver agreement among midwives for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces, using both the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines.

Material and methods: Retrospective, single-center, observational study conducted at the Maternity Hospital of the University of Parma, Italy, between November 2022 and July 2023. We selected 100 nonconsecutive intrapartum CTG traces from women undergoing operative delivery (cesarean or instrumental vaginal delivery). Participating midwives received the last 60 min of CTG recording prior to the decision for an operative delivery was made. Five midwives with different professional experience classified the CTG tracing according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines and the physiology-based guidelines at the time of the decision for the operative delivery. Each midwife was categorized as senior or junior if her clinical experience was equal or more or less than 5 years. All participating midwives were blinded to the demographic and clinical variables of each case, as well as to the labor and neonatal outcome. The main outcome of the study was the interobserver agreement among the 5 midwives with either guideline. The secondary outcome was the interobserver agreement based on clinical experience. The agreement between the observers was estimated through the Krippendorff's alpha statistics.

Results: The interobserver agreement for the interpretation of intrapartum CTG traces according to the 2015 FIGO guideline was in the upper limit of the "unacceptable" classification, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.632 (95% CI, 0.545-0.723). The interobserver agreement of the physiology-based CTG guideline was classified as "unacceptable" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.359 (95% CI, 0.125-0.582). The interobserver agreement among senior midwives according to the 2015 FIGO guidelines was considered as "tentative acceptable agreement" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.724 (95% CI, 0.636-0.805). Among junior midwives, the interobserver agreement according to the latter guideline was classified as "unacceptable" with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.569 (95% CI, 0.359-0.751). Using the physiology-based guideline, the interobserver agreement of the senior midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.493 (95% CI, 0.320-0.623) - and "junior" midwives - Krippendorff's alpha 0.359 (95% CI, 0.100-0.581) - were considered both "unacceptable".

Conclusions: Our study showed that intrapartum CTG interpretation is characterized by an overall unacceptable level of interobserver agreement among midwives, with the 2015 FIGO guidelines showing better agreement compared to physiology-based guidelines. The interpretation of intrapartum CTG by "senior" midwives using the 2015 FIGO guidelines showed the highest, interobserver agreement, indicating a "tentative acceptable agreement".

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
217
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The official journal of The European Association of Perinatal Medicine, The Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies and The International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians. The journal publishes a wide range of peer-reviewed research on the obstetric, medical, genetic, mental health and surgical complications of pregnancy and their effects on the mother, fetus and neonate. Research on audit, evaluation and clinical care in maternal-fetal and perinatal medicine is also featured.
×
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