Cochrane · systematic review · CD007863
Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment
Grivell, RM, Alfirevic, Z, Gyte, GML, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
14
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 14.3%Low 4 · 28.6%Moderate 1 · 7.1%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
Traditional antenatal CTG compared with no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) for fetal assessment
Population: Pregnant women with/without complications
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Perinatal mortality Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | RR 2.05 [0.95, 4.42] | 4 studies · 1627 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | RR 1.06 [0.88, 1.28] | 3 studies · 1279 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Apgar less than 7 at 5 minutes Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | RR 0.83 [0.37, 1.88] | 1 study · 396 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Admission to neonatal special care unit or intensive care unit Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | RR 1.08 [0.84, 1.39] | 2 studies · 883 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurodevelopmental disability at 12 months of age Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Caesarean section for non‐reassuring or abnormal fetal heart rate patterns Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Women's satisfaction with care Traditional antenatal CTG vs no antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complication) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Computerised antenatal CTG compared with traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) for fetal assessment
Population: Pregnant women with/without complications
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Perinatal mortality Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | RR 0.2 [0.04, 0.88] | 2 studies · 469 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | RR 0.87 [0.61, 1.24] | 1 study · 59 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Apgar less than 7 at 5 minutes Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | RR 1.31 [0.3, 5.74] | 2 studies · 469 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Admission to neonatal special care unit or intensive care unit Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neurodevelopmental disability at 12 months of age Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Caesarean section for non‐reassuring or abnormal fetal heart rate patterns Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Women's satisfaction with care Computerised antenatal CTG vs traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |