{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,11,7]],"date-time":"2026-11-07T18:17:24Z","timestamp":1794075444792,"version":"4.8.0"},"reference-count":28,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"7300","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]],"date-time":"2001-06-16T00:00:00Z","timestamp":992649600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/company\/legal-information\/terms-conditions\/legal-information\/tdm-licencepolicy"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMJ"],"accepted":{"date-parts":[[2001,2,19]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Objective:<\/jats:bold>\n                    To compare the effect of admission cardiotocography and Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart on neonatal outcome and levels of obstetric intervention in a low risk obstetric population.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Design:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Randomised controlled trial.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Setting:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Obstetric unit of teaching hospital\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Participants:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Pregnant women who had no obstetric complications that warranted continuous monitoring of fetal heart rate in labour.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Intervention:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Women were randomised to receive either cardiotocography or Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart when they were admitted in spontaneous uncomplicated labour.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Main outcome measures:<\/jats:bold>\n                    The primary outcome measure was umbilical arterial metabolic acidosis. Secondary outcome measures included other measures of condition at birth and obstetric intervention.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Results:<\/jats:bold>\n                    There were no significant differences in the incidence of metabolic acidosis or any other measure of neonatal outcome among women who remained at low risk when they were admitted in labour. However, compared with women who received Doppler auscultation, women who had admission cardiotocography were significantly more likely to have continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labour (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.76), augmentation of labour (1.26, 1.02 to 1.56), epidural analgesia (1.33, 1.10 to 1.61), and operative delivery (1.36, 1.12 to 1.65).\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Conclusions:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Compared with Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart, admission cardiotocography does not benefit neonatal outcome in low risk women. Its use results in increased obstetric intervention, including operative delivery.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:boxed-text position=\"float\">\n                      <jats:sec>\n                        <jats:title>What is already known on this topic<\/jats:title>\n                        <jats:p>The admission cardiotocogram is a short recording of the fetal heart rate immediately after admission to the labour ward<\/jats:p>\n                        <jats:p>Opinion varies about its value in identifying a potentially compromised fetus<\/jats:p>\n                        <jats:p>In low risk women, the incidence of intrapartum fetal compromise is low<\/jats:p>\n                      <\/jats:sec>\n                      <jats:sec>\n                        <jats:title>What this study adds<\/jats:title>\n                        <jats:p>Compared with Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart, admission cardiotocography has no benefit on neonatal outcome in low risk women<\/jats:p>\n                        <jats:p>Admission cardiotocography results in increased obstetric intervention, including operative delivery<\/jats:p>\n                      <\/jats:sec>\n                    <\/jats:boxed-text>\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2002,7,27]],"date-time":"2002-07-27T06:43:06Z","timestamp":1027752186000},"page":"1457-1462","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":73,"title":["Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric populationCommentary: changes between protocol and manuscript should be declared at submissionCommentary: research governance must focus on research trainingCommentary: Approach to power calculations has to be realistic"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"322","author":[{"given":"Gary","family":"Mires","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sandy","family":"Goldbeck-Wood","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Gordon D","family":"Murray","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Britt-Ingjerd","family":"Nesheim","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Fiona","family":"Williams","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Peter","family":"Howie","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.1","unstructured":"Ingemarsson I . Electronic fetal monitoring as a screening test. In: Spencer JAD Ward RHT , ed. Intrapartum fetal surveillance. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1993:45\u201352."},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.2","first-page":"1375","article-title":"Fetal heart rate monitoring in labour\u2014too frequent intervention, too little benefit?","volume":"ii","author":"Prentice","year":"1997","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.3","unstructured":"Grant AM . Electronic fetal monitoring alone versus intermittent auscultation in labour. In: Enkin MW Kierse MJNC Renfrew MJ Neilson JP , ed. Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth database. Oxford: Update Software, 1993."},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"613","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(95)80027-1","article-title":"Efficacy and safety of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: an update","volume":"86","author":"Thacker","year":"1995","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Thacker SB Stroup DF . Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000063.","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD000063"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.6","unstructured":"Florey C du V . Randomiser. Dundee: University of Dundee, 1995."},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1128","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1988.tb06790.x","article-title":"Screening of the fetal heart in early labour","volume":"95","author":"Pello","year":"1988","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"879","DOI":"10.1016\/S0095-5108(18)30324-5","article-title":"Labor admission test","volume":"21","author":"Phelan","year":"1994","journal-title":"Clin Perinatol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.9","first-page":"737","article-title":"Factors involved in the interpretation of fetal monitor tracings","volume":"151","author":"Hefland","year":"1981","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.10","first-page":"214","article-title":"The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments","volume":"127","author":"Beaulieu","year":"1982","journal-title":"Can Med J"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"421","DOI":"10.3109\/00016348709022046","article-title":"Intra and inter observer variability in the assessments of intrapartum cardiotocograms","volume":"66","author":"Nielson","year":"1987","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"554","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(88)80006-1","article-title":"Reliability and reproducibility of non stress test readings","volume":"159","author":"Borgotta","year":"1988","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/00016349209007947"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"434","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1982.tb03632.x","article-title":"Predictive value of, and observer variability in, several ways of reporting antenatal cardiotocograms","volume":"89","author":"Flynn","year":"1982","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"701","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(82)90440-9","article-title":"Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of antenatal cardiotocograms","volume":"144","author":"Lotgering","year":"1982","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"900","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1978.tb15851.x","article-title":"Observer variability in the assessment of antenatal cardiotocograms","volume":"85","author":"Trimbos","year":"1978","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"791","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14408.x","article-title":"Antenatal cardiotocograms and interpretation using computers","volume":"99","author":"Dawes","year":"1992","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.18","first-page":"239","article-title":"Relationship of early intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns to subsequent patterns and fetal outcome","volume":"35","author":"Sarno","year":"1990","journal-title":"J Reprod Med"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.19","first-page":"301","article-title":"The rising caesarean section rate\u2014a matter of concern","volume":"43","author":"McIlwaine","year":"1985","journal-title":"Health Bull"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0140-6736(93)92874-S"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"403","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15260.x","article-title":"What is the correct caesarean section rate?","volume":"100","author":"Chamberlain","year":"1993","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1017","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.307.6911.1017","article-title":"The rising trend in caesarean birth","volume":"307","author":"Treffers","year":"1993","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"45","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09349.x","article-title":"Is the rising caesarean section rate inevitable?","volume":"105","author":"Wilkinson","year":"1998","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"664","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs.1800750714","article-title":"The task of a statistical referee","volume":"75","author":"Murray","year":"1988","journal-title":"Br J Surg"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs.1800780704"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/096228020000900103"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"751","DOI":"10.1002\/cpt1979255part2751","article-title":"Problems in publication of clinical trial methodology","volume":"25","author":"Lasagna","year":"1979","journal-title":"Clin Pharmacol Ther"},{"key":"2025122109402433000_322.7300.1457.28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(00)04337-3"}],"container-title":["BMJ"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/data.bmj.org\/tdm\/10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,21]],"date-time":"2025-12-21T17:40:37Z","timestamp":1766338837000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]},"references-count":28,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7300","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.322.7300.1457","relation":{},"ISSN":["0959-8138","1468-5833"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0959-8138","type":"print"},{"value":"1468-5833","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2001,6,16]]}}}