{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,22]],"date-time":"2026-03-22T02:18:59Z","timestamp":1774145939335,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>OBJECTIVE:<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>To evaluate whether intrapartum fetal monitoring with computer analysis and real-time alerts decreases the rate of newborn metabolic acidosis or obstetric intervention when compared with visual analysis.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>METHODS:<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>A randomized clinical trial carried out in five hospitals in the United Kingdom evaluated women with singleton, vertex fetuses of 36 weeks of gestation or greater during labor. Continuous central fetal monitoring by computer analysis and online alerts (experimental arm) was compared with visual analysis (control arm). Fetal blood sampling and electrocardiographic ST waveform analysis were available in both arms. The primary outcome was incidence of newborn metabolic acidosis (pH less than 7.05 and base deficit greater than 12 mmol\/L). Prespecified secondary outcomes included operative delivery, use of fetal blood sampling, low 5-minute Apgar score, neonatal intensive care unit admission, hypoxic\u2013ischemic encephalopathy, and perinatal death. A sample size of 3,660 per group (N=7,320) was planned to be able to detect a reduction in the rate of metabolic acidosis from 2.8% to 1.8% (two-tailed \u03b1 of 0.05 with 80% power).<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>RESULTS:<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>From August 2011 through July 2014, 32,306 women were assessed for eligibility and 7,730 were randomized: 3,961 to computer analysis and online alerts, and 3,769 to visual analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Metabolic acidosis occurred in 16 participants (0.40%) in the experimental arm and 22 participants (0.58%) in the control arm (relative risk 0.69 [0.36\u20131.31]). No statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of secondary outcomes.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>CONCLUSION:<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>Compared with visual analysis, computer analysis of fetal monitoring signals with real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the rate of metabolic acidosis or obstetric intervention. A lower-than-expected rate of newborn metabolic acidosis was observed in both arms of the trial.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>ISRCTN Registry, http:\/\/www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42314164.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1097\/aog.0000000000001799","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,12,7]],"date-time":"2016-12-07T13:59:24Z","timestamp":1481119164000},"page":"83-90","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":61,"title":["Central Fetal Monitoring With and Without Computer Analysis"],"prefix":"10.1097","volume":"129","author":[{"given":"In\u00eas","family":"Nunes","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Diogo","family":"Ayres-de-Campos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Austin","family":"Ugwumadu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Pina","family":"Amin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Philip","family":"Banfield","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Antony","family":"Nicoll","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Simon","family":"Cunningham","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Paulo","family":"Sousa","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Cristina","family":"Costa-Santos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Jo\u00e3o","family":"Bernardes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"name":"for the Fetal Monitoring and Alert (FM-ALERT) Study Group","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R4-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"5","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2015.06.018","article-title":"FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: physiology of fetal oxygenation and the main goals of intrapartum fetal monitoring","volume":"131","author":"Ayres-de-Campos","year":"2015","journal-title":"Int J Gynecol Obstet"},{"key":"R5-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1307","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08187.x","article-title":"Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision","volume":"106","author":"Ayres-de-Campos","year":"1999","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"R6-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"298","DOI":"10.1515\/JPM.2006.057","article-title":"Intrapartum cardiotocography\u2014the dilemma of interpretational variation","volume":"34","author":"Palom\u00e4ki","year":"2006","journal-title":"J Perinat Med"},{"key":"R8-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"260","DOI":"10.1515\/JPM.2008.030","article-title":"Omniview-SisPorto 3.5\u2014a central fetal monitoring station with online alerts based on computerized cardiotocogram+ST event analysis","volume":"36","author":"Ayres-de-Campos","year":"2008","journal-title":"J Perinat Med"},{"key":"R9-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"191","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm.2010.030","article-title":"Comparison of a computer system evaluation of intrapartum cardiotocographic events and a consensus of clinicians","volume":"38","author":"Costa","year":"2010","journal-title":"J Perinat Med"},{"key":"R10-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"464.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.04.033","article-title":"Prediction of fetal acidemia by computer analysis of fetal heart rate and ST event signals","volume":"201","author":"Costa","year":"2009","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R11-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"71","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2393-10-71","article-title":"A randomised clinical trial of intrapartum fetal monitoring with computer analysis and alerts versus previously available monitoring","volume":"10","author":"Ayres-de-Campos","year":"2010","journal-title":"BMC Pregnancy Childbirth"},{"key":"R12-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1054","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13581.x","article-title":"Umbilical cord blood gas analysis at delivery: a time for quality data","volume":"101","author":"Westgate","year":"1994","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R13-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"221","DOI":"10.1515\/jpme.1991.19.3.221","article-title":"How to assess fetal metabolic acidosis from cord samples","volume":"19","author":"Rosen","year":"1991","journal-title":"J Perinat Med"},{"key":"R14-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1202","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2007.01480.x","article-title":"Review of the first 1502 cases of ECG-ST waveform analysis during labour in a teaching hospital","volume":"114","author":"Doria","year":"2007","journal-title":"BJOG"},{"key":"R16-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"534","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(01)05703-8","article-title":"Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial","volume":"358","author":"Amer-W\u00e5hlin","year":"2001","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"R17-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"632","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1500600","article-title":"A randomized trial of intrapartum fetal ECG ST-segment analysis","volume":"373","author":"Belfort","year":"2015","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"R18-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1173","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181dfffd6","article-title":"Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial","volume":"115","author":"Westerhuis","year":"2010","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"R20-20230711","first-page":"394","article-title":"Electronic fetal monitoring during labour and anxiety levels in women taking part in a RCT","volume":"21","author":"Barber","year":"2013","journal-title":"Br J Mid"},{"key":"R21-20230711","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"91","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.08.023","article-title":"Quantitative cardiotocography to improve fetal assessment during labor: a preliminary randomized controlled trial","volume":"205","author":"Ignatov","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"}],"container-title":["Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/00006250-201701000-00011","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,7,11]],"date-time":"2023-07-11T19:11:41Z","timestamp":1689102701000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/00006250-201701000-00011"}},"subtitle":["A Randomized Controlled Trial"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,1]]},"references-count":15,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/aog.0000000000001799","relation":{},"ISSN":["0029-7844"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0029-7844","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,1]]}}}