Question · asked by 1 review
Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry: Caesarean section
- Population
- Not specified
- Intervention
- Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry
- Comparison
- external tocodynamometry
- Outcome
- Caesarean section
Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with external tocodynamometry (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry Caesarean section Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with external tocodynamometry (moderate certainty). Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.04 [0.85, 1.29] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour 2013 · 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.