Intermittent ausculation of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being ‐ Intermittent electronic fetal monitoring (CTG) vs routine Pinard (outcomes: Caesarean section for fetal distress and/or fetal acidosis
- Population
- women in established labour and their babies.
- Intervention
- Intermittent ausculation of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being ‐ Intermittent electronic fetal monitoring (CTG)
- Comparison
- routine Pinard (outcomes
- Outcome
- Caesarean section for fetal distress and/or fetal acidosis
Intermittent ausculation of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal… probably leads to higher caesarean section for fetal distress and/or fetal acidosis compared with routine Pinard (outcomes (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intermittent ausculation of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being ‐ Intermittent electronic fetal monitoring (CTG) vs routine Pinard (outcomes Caesarean section for fetal distress and/or fetal acidosis · women in established labour and their babies. Intermittent ausculation of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal… probably leads to higher caesarean section for fetal distress and/or fetal acidosis compared with routine Pinard (outcomes (moderate certainty). Intermittent auscultation (IA) of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.92 [1.78, 4.8] | 1 study · 633 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intermittent auscultation (IA) of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well‐being 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.