Summary of findings 2. Computerised antenatal CTG compared with traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) for fetal assessment.
Computerised antenatal CTG compared with traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) for fetal assessment | ||||||
Patient or population: Pregnant women with/without complications Settings: USA and South Africa Intervention: Computerised antenatal CTG Comparison: Traditional antenatal CTG (women at increased risk of complications) | ||||||
Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
Traditional antenatal CTG (Women at increased risk of complications) | Computerised antenatal CTG | |||||
Perinatal mortality | Study population | RR 0.20 (0.04 to 0.88) | 469 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 1 | ||
43 per 1000 | 9 per 1000 (2 to 38) | |||||
Moderate | ||||||
84 per 1000 | 17 per 1000 (3 to 74) | |||||
Caesarean section | Study population | RR 0.87 (0.61 to 1.24) | 59 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1,2 | ||
724 per 1000 | 630 per 1000 (442 to 898) | |||||
Apgar less than 7 at 5 minutes | Study population | RR 1.31 (0.30 to 5.74) | 469 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1,3 | ||
13 per 1000 | 17 per 1000 (4 to 74) | |||||
Moderate | ||||||
22 per 1000 | 29 per 1000 (7 to 127) | |||||
Admission to neonatal special care unit or intensive care unit | None of these outcomes were reported by any of the included studies under this comparison. | |||||
Neurodevelopmental disability at 12 months of age | ||||||
Caesarean section for non‐reassuring or abnormal fetal heart rate patterns | ||||||
Women's satisfaction with care | ||||||
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. |
1Included studies were of unclear risk of bias.
2Wide CI crossing the line of no effect.
3Small studies with few events and wide CI crossing the line of no effect.