Question · asked by 1 review
Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication): Caesarean section
- Population
- Pregnant women with/without complications
- Intervention
- Traditional antenatal CTG
- Comparison
- no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication)
- Outcome
- Caesarean section
Traditional antenatal CTG showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) Caesarean section · Pregnant women with/without complications Traditional antenatal CTG showed no clear difference in caesarean section compared with no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) (low certainty). Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.06 [0.88, 1.28] | 3 studies · 1279 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment 2015 · 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.