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.