How to read fetal heart rate tracings in labor: a comparison between ACOG and NICE guidelines.

{"article_title":"How to read fetal heart rate tracings in labor: a comparison between ACOG and NICE guidelines.","author":"Buscicchio, Giorgia , Gentilucci, Lucia , Martorana, Rossana , Martino, Cristina , Tranquilli, Andrea Luigi","journal_title":"The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians","issn":"1476-4954 ; Electronic","isbn":"","publication_date":"20121201","volume":"25","issue":"12","first_page":"2797","page_count":"2","accession_number":"22881995","doi":"10.3109\/14767058.2012.718391","publisher":"Informa Healthcare","doctype":"Comparative Study","subjects":"Gynecology and Obstetrics ","interest_area":["Obstetrics & Gynecology"," Radiology"," Cardiology"," Pediatric Medicine"],"abstract":"The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility and clinical relevance of current guidelines on fetal heart rate interpretation in labor. Two obstetricians with comparable experience analyzed one hundred fetal heart rate tracings. One doctor made a first analysis using American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2009 guideline's criteria; the other used National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) 2007 guideline's criteria; subsequently they repeated the evaluation crossing the guidelines used. The primary outcome of this experiment was to determine the time spent to evaluate the tracings, secondary outcomes were: the intraobserver concordance (concordance of the evaluation with the two systems for each investigator), the interobserver concordance (concordance between the interpretation given by each investigator) and. the concordance between operators' grading and actual outcome of labor. The interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings was longer using ACOG criteria. The intraobserver agreement was significant. The interobserver agreement was better using NICE guidelines. The same trend showed for the concordance between investigators' grading and actual outcomes There was more discordance in worse outcomes. Both guidelines are interesting and useful, but NICE seems easier to handle than ACOG.","url":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdl&AN=22881995&authtype=shib&custid=ns346513"}