Cochrane · systematic review · CD006947
Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour
Bakker, JJH, Janssen, PF, van Halem, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 7 · 100%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyMonitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry compared to external tocodynamometry
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hyperstimulation Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.21 [0.78, 1.88] | 2 studies · 489 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Apgar score less than seven at five minutes Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.78 [0.83, 3.83] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Umbilical artery pH < 7.15 Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.31 [0.95, 1.79] | 1 study · 1456 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Umbilical artery pH < 7.16 Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.23 [0.39, 3.92] | 1 study · 239 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Admission to neonatal intensive care Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 0.34 [0.07, 1.67] | 2 studies · 489 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Instrumental vaginal delivery Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.06 [0.85, 1.32] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.04 [0.85, 1.29] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry compared to external tocodynamometry
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hyperstimulation Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.21 [0.78, 1.88] | 2 studies · 489 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Apgar score less than seven at five minutes Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.78 [0.83, 3.83] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Umbilical artery pH < 7.15 Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.31 [0.95, 1.79] | 1 study · 1456 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Umbilical artery pH < 7.16 Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.23 [0.39, 3.92] | 1 study · 239 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Admission to neonatal intensive care Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 0.34 [0.07, 1.67] | 2 studies · 489 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Instrumental vaginal delivery Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.06 [0.85, 1.32] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section Monitoring of contractions with internal tocodynamometry vs external tocodynamometry | RR 1.04 [0.85, 1.29] | 3 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |