Continuous CTG vs intermittent auscultation: Use of pharmacological analgesia
Continuous CTG showed no clear difference in any pharmacological analgesia compared with intermittent auscultation (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuous CTG vs intermittent auscultation Any pharmacological analgesia · Pregnant women undergoing fetal assessment during labour Continuous CTG showed no clear difference in any pharmacological analgesia compared with intermittent auscultation (low certainty). Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.88, 1.09] | 3 studies · 1677 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.