Question · asked by 1 review
Admission cardiotocography vs intermittent auscultation: Rate of caesarean section
- Population
- Low risk pregnant women. All of the women were in labour.
- Intervention
- Admission cardiotocography
- Comparison
- intermittent auscultation
- Outcome
- Rate of caesarean section
Admission cardiotocography showed no clear difference in incidence of caesarean section compared with intermittent auscultation (low‐risk women) (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Admission cardiotocography vs Intermittent auscultation (low‐risk women) Incidence of caesarean section · Low risk pregnant women. All of the women were in labour. Admission cardiotocography showed no clear difference in incidence of caesarean section compared with intermittent auscultation (low‐risk women) (moderate certainty). Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.2 [1, 1.44] | 4 studies · 11338 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.