



@article {2583,
	title = {Objective computerized fetal heart rate analysis},
	journal = {International Journal of Gynecology and ObstetricsInt. J. Gynecol. Obstet.},
	volume = {62},
	year = {1998},
	note = {Cited By (since 1996): 23Export Date: 21 November 2012Source: ScopusCODEN: IJGOAdoi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(98)00079-4PubMed ID: 9749885Language of Original Document: EnglishCorrespondence Address: Bernardes, J.; Departmento Ginecologia Obstetricia, Faculdade Medicina-Hospital S. Joao, Porto, Portugal; email: sisporto@mail.telepac.ptReferences: Bernardes, J., Costa-Pereira, A., Ayres-De-Campos, D., Van Geijn, H.P., Pereira-Leite, L., Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms (1997) Int J Gynecol Obstet, 57 (1), pp. 33-37;Bernardes, J., Costa-Pereira, A., Van Geijn, H.P., Pereira-Leite, L., A more objective fetal heart rate baseline estimation (1996) Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 103, pp. 714-715; 
Grant, A., Principles for clinical evaluation of methods of perinatal monitoring (1984) J Perinat Med, 12, pp. 227-231; 
Bernardes, J., Moura, C., Marques-De-S{\'a}, J.P., Pereira-Leite, L., Van Geijn, H.P., The Porto System (1994) A Critical Appraisal of Fetal Surveillance, pp. 315-324. , In: van Geijn HP, Copray FJA, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 
Rooth, G., Huch, A., Huch, R., Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. FIGO news (1987) Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 25, pp. 159-167; 
Mohide, P., Grant, A., Evaluating diagnosis and screening during pregnancy and childbirth (1989) Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, pp. 66-80. , In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M JNC, editors. Oxford University Press; 
Garcia-Romero, H., Garcia-Barrios, C., Ramos-Gutierrez, F.R., Effects of uncertain results on sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests (1996) Lancet, 348, pp. 1745-1746; 
Grant, J.M., The fetal heart rate is normal, isn{\textquoteright}t it?. Observer agreement of categorical assessments (1991) Lancet, 337, pp. 215-218; 
Guzman, E., Vintzileos, A., Martins, M., Benito, C., Houlihan, C., The efficacy of individual computer heart rate indices in detecting acidemia at birth in growth-restricted fetuses (1996) Obstet Gynecol, 87, pp. 969-974; 
Nielsen, P.V., Stigsby, B., Nickelsen, C., Nim, J., Computer assessment of the intrapartum cardiotocogram. II. The value of compared with visual assessment (1988) Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 67, pp. 461-464; 
Chung, T.K.H., Mohajer, M.P., Yang, Z.J., Chang, A.M.Z., Sahota, D.S., The prediction of fetal acidosis at birth by computerized analysis of intrapartum cardiotocography (1995) Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 102, pp. 454-460; 
Stigsby, B., Nielson, P.V., Nickelsen, C., Nim, J., Computer assessment of the intrapartum cardiotocogram. I. Methods of data reduction and diagnostic procedure (1988) Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 67, pp. 455-460
},
	month = {1998///},
	pages = {141 - 147},
	abstract = {Objective: To assess the validity of a computerized methodology for cardiotocogram analysis based on a recently described reproducible visual estimation of the baseline. Methods: Forty-two antepartum and 43 intrapartum cardiotocograms (CTGs) acquired by a personal computer were selected. Antepartum tracings were performed in the 48 h that preceded an elective cesarean section, and intrapartum tracings were performed until delivery. FHR baselines were estimated by an expert, according to an objective and reproducible methodology. Using these baselines, automated detection of accelerations and decelerations and estimation of variability was performed by the personal computer. A quantitative adaptation of the FIGO guidelines for fetal monitoring was used to classify tracings. Perinatal outcome was classified according to the Apgar score and umbilical arterial pH. Validity was then assessed by the proportions of agreement (PA), kappa statistic (κ), sensitivity and specificity, with 95\% confidence intervals (95\% CI). Cases showing a disagreement between CTG and perinatal classification were reviewed and an adjustment in baseline definition was tested. Results: The initial overall PA and κ between CTG and perinatal classification were, respectively, 0.79 (95\% CI: 0.69-0.87) and 0.62 (95\% CI: 0.41-0.83). The overall PA and κ, after baseline adjustment were, respectively, 0.89 (95\% CI: 0.81-0.95) and 0.78 (95\% CI: 0.58-0.98). Sensitivities and specificities ranged between 79\% (95\% CI: 60-92\%) and 100\% (95\% CI: 95-100\%). Conclusions: Good clinical prediction may be possible with an objective methodology for cardiotocogram analysis based on a recently described reproducible baseline estimation.},
	keywords = {Apgar score, arterial pH, article, Cardiotocography, cesarean section, computer analysis, Computerized analysis, Female, Fetal heart rate, fetus, fetus heart rate, fetus monitoring, Heart Rate, Fetal, human, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, practice guideline, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, priority journal, umbilical artery, validity},
	isbn = {00207292 (ISSN)},
	url = {http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031873609\&partnerID=40\&md5=2b885fbc95cba06c5f31f417216ebba2},
	author = {Bernardes, J. and Ayres-de-Campos, D. and Costa-Pereira, A. and Pereira-Leite, L. and Garrido, A.}
}
