489 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27869985)
1. Agreement and accuracy using the FIGO, ACOG and NICE cardiotocography interpretation guidelines.
Santo S; Ayres-de-Campos D; Costa-Santos C; Schnettler W; Ugwumadu A; Da Graça LM;
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2017 Feb; 96(2):166-175. PubMed ID: 27869985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic capacity and interobserver variability in FIGO, ACOG, NICE and Chandraharan cardiotocographic guidelines to predict neonatal acidemia.
Zamora Del Pozo C; Chóliz Ezquerro M; Mejía I; Díaz de Terán Martínez-Berganza E; Esteban LM; Rivero Alonso A; Castán Larraz B; Andeyro García M; Savirón Cornudella R
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2022 Dec; 35(25):8498-8506. PubMed ID: 34652249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A cross-sectional comparison of three guidelines for intrapartum cardiotocography.
Bhatia M; Mahtani KR; Nunan D; Reddy A
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2017 Jul; 138(1):89-93. PubMed ID: 28346664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impaired validity of the new FIGO and Swedish CTG classification templates to identify fetal acidosis in the first stage of labor.
Ekengård F; Cardell M; Herbst A
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2022 Dec; 35(25):4853-4860. PubMed ID: 33406946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic Accuracy of the FIGO and the 5-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Classification Systems in the Detection of Neonatal Acidemia.
Martí Gamboa S; Giménez OR; Mancho JP; Moros ML; Sada JR; Mateo SC
Am J Perinatol; 2017 Apr; 34(5):508-514. PubMed ID: 27780275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Inter-observer reliability of 4 fetal heart rate classifications.
Garabedian C; Butruille L; Drumez E; Servan Schreiber E; Bartolo S; Bleu G; Mesdag V; Deruelle P; De Jonckheere J; Houfflin-Debarge V
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2017 Feb; 46(2):131-135. PubMed ID: 28403968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How to read fetal heart rate tracings in labor: a comparison between ACOG and NICE guidelines.
Buscicchio G; Gentilucci L; Martorana R; Martino C; Tranquilli AL
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2012 Dec; 25(12):2797-8. PubMed ID: 22881995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Sensitivity and specificity of intrapartum computerised FIGO criteria for cardiotocography and fetal scalp pH during labour: multicentre, observational study.
Schiermeier S; Pildner von Steinburg S; Thieme A; Reinhard J; Daumer M; Scholz M; Hatzmann W; Schneider KT
BJOG; 2008 Nov; 115(12):1557-63. PubMed ID: 18752587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver agreement in CTG interpretation using the 2015 FIGO guidelines for intrapartum fetal monitoring.
Rei M; Tavares S; Pinto P; Machado AP; Monteiro S; Costa A; Costa-Santos C; Bernardes J; Ayres-De-Campos D
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Oct; 205():27-31. PubMed ID: 27566218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interobserver agreement in analysis of cardiotocograms recorded during trial of labor after cesarean.
Caning MM; Thisted DLA; Amer-Wählin I; Laier GH; Krebs L
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2019 Nov; 32(22):3778-3783. PubMed ID: 29724142
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of non-reassuring cardiotocography analysis and subsequent clinical management.
Rhöse S; Heinis AM; Vandenbussche F; van Drongelen J; van Dillen J
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2014 Jun; 93(6):596-602. PubMed ID: 24597920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of Four Intrapartum Cardiotocography Classifications for Predicting Neonatal Acidemia at Birth.
Troha N; Razem K; Luzovec U; Lucovnik M
J Pregnancy; 2023; 2023():5853889. PubMed ID: 36814692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System.
Blackwell SC; Grobman WA; Antoniewicz L; Hutchinson M; Gyamfi Bannerman C
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Oct; 205(4):378.e1-5. PubMed ID: 21864826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of five classification systems for interpreting electronic fetal monitoring in predicting neonatal status at birth.
Di Tommaso M; Seravalli V; Cordisco A; Consorti G; Mecacci F; Rizzello F
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2013 Mar; 26(5):487-90. PubMed ID: 23039108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. CTG interpretation templates affect residents' decision making.
Ekengård F; Cardell M; Herbst A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2023 Jun; 285():148-152. PubMed ID: 37120910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interobserver reliability to interpret intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: Does a standardized algorithm improve agreement among clinicians?
Uccella S; Cromi A; Colombo GF; Bogani G; Casarin J; Agosti M; Ghezzi F
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2015 Apr; 35(3):241-5. PubMed ID: 25254299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop.
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1997; 26(6):635-40. PubMed ID: 9395971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia.
Cahill AG; Tuuli MG; Stout MJ; López JD; Macones GA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 May; 218(5):523.e1-523.e12. PubMed ID: 29408586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Fetal Growth Restriction: A Comprehensive Review of Major Guidelines.
Giouleka S; Tsakiridis I; Mamopoulos A; Kalogiannidis I; Athanasiadis A; Dagklis T
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2023 Nov; 78(11):690-708. PubMed ID: 38134339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: evaluation of a standardized system of interpretation for prediction of metabolic acidosis at delivery and neonatal neurological morbidity.
Soncini E; Paganelli S; Vezzani C; Gargano G; Giovanni Battista LS
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2014 Sep; 27(14):1465-9. PubMed ID: 24156253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
