Premium
Computerised estimation of the baseline fetal heart rate in labour: the low frequency line
Author(s) -
Mongelli Max,
Dawkins Robert,
Chung Tony,
Sahota Daljit,
Spencer John A. D.,
Chang Allan M. Z.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
bjog: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.157
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1471-0528
pISSN - 1470-0328
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb10935.x
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , fetal heart rate , concordance , baseline (sea) , medicine , cardiotocography , heart rate , fetus , pregnancy , blood pressure , genetics , geology , clinical psychology , oceanography , biology , psychometrics
Short Headline: Computerised FHR baseline estimation Objective To develop and evaluate a computerised algorithm for the estimation of the fetal heart rate baseline (low frequency line) during labour. Design Retrospective observational study. Methods Fetal heart rate signals were obtained from women in labour using the Nottingham fetal ECG monitor. The computerised algorithm for the baseline estimation was developed for intrapartum applications and is based on averaging modal fetal heart rate values. Evaluation was carried out on sixty cardiotocographic recordings by 12 experts and by the computer. These estimates were compared with those obtained from the computerised system using paired differences and intraclass correlation. Results The study showed that it is possible to produce a low frequency line from data obtained from intrapartum records. The system could not estimate the low frequency line in four records, whereas experts were also unable to estimate between one and seven tracings. The 95% CI for the paired differences between computer and experts was ‐12 to 15 bpm, whereas between the experts this was ‐10 to 10. With the exception of one expert, there was a high concordance between experts and between computer and experts (intraclass correlation > 0.9). Conclusions The performance of this computerised algorithm cannot be distinguished from that of experienced clinicians. There were no significant differences between baseline values obtained by the computerised algorithm and those by the clinicians.