Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines on intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation provide structured tools to detect fetal hypoxia. Despite frequent use of different guidelines, little is known about their comparable consistency. We sought to appraise guidelines relevant to intrapartum CTG interpretation and summarise consensus and non-consensus recommendations. To compare existing intrapartum CTG interpretation guidelines. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, guideline databases and websites of guideline development institutions using terms 'cardiotocography', 'electronic fetal/foetal monitoring', and 'guideline' or equivalent term. The search was restricted to English-language articles published between January 1980 and January 2023 and excluded animal studies. The initial search yielded 2128 articles with 1253 unique citations. Guidelines were included if they: used English as the reporting language; included CTG interpretation criteria or guidelines as a primary objective; were published or updated since 1980; and were the most recently updated publications when multiple versions were identified. Nineteen studies were considered for full review, and 13 met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument, and synthesised consensus and non-consensus recommendations using the content analysis approach. Most guidelines employed a three-tier interpretation framework. There were significant differences between the guidelines for relative importance of key CTG features such as accelerations, decelerations and variability, with respect to the outcome of fetal hypoxia. There are significant differences between key intrapartum CTG interpretation guidelines currently being used. Greater consistency is needed across CTG interpretation guidelines to improve the quality of data, clinical governance, monitoring of outcomes, and to support future developments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
