Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes

Objective To compare the accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification from maternal abdominal electrohysterogram and tocodynamometer with an intrauterine pressure transducer. Methods Seventy-four term parturients had uterine contractions monitored simultaneously with electrohystero...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health 2012-01, Vol.2012 (2012), p.65-75
Hauptverfasser: Hayes-Gill, Barrie, Hassan, Sarmina, Mirza, Fadi G., Ommani, Sophia, Himsworth, John, Solomon, Molham, Brown, Raymond, Schifrin, Barry S., Cohen, Wayne R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 75
container_issue 2012
container_start_page 65
container_title Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health
container_volume 2012
creator Hayes-Gill, Barrie
Hassan, Sarmina
Mirza, Fadi G.
Ommani, Sophia
Himsworth, John
Solomon, Molham
Brown, Raymond
Schifrin, Barry S.
Cohen, Wayne R.
description Objective To compare the accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification from maternal abdominal electrohysterogram and tocodynamometer with an intrauterine pressure transducer. Methods Seventy-four term parturients had uterine contractions monitored simultaneously with electrohysterography, tocodynamometry, and intrauterine pressure measurement. Results Electrohysterography was more reliable than tocodynamometry when compared to the intrauterine method (97.1 versus 60.9 positive percent agreement; P < 0.001). The root mean square error was lower for electrohysterography than tocodynamometry in the first stage (0.88 versus 1.22 contractions/10 minutes; P < 0.001), and equivalent to tocodynamometry in the second. The positive predictive values for tocodynamometry and electrohysterography (84.1% versus 78.7%) were not significantly different, nor were the false positive rates (21.3% versus 15.9%; P = 0.052). The sensitivity of electrohysterography was superior to that of tocodynamometry (86.0 versus 73.6%; P < 0.001). Conclusion The electrohysterographic technique was more reliable and similar in accuracy to tocodynamometry in detecting intrapartum uterine contractions.
doi_str_mv 10.4137/CMWH.S10444
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1243167914</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A340575431</galeid><airiti_id>P20160615003_201212_201606150049_201606150049_65_75</airiti_id><sage_id>10.4137_CMWH.S10444</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A340575431</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a492t-19029ee89b77535a1a8b8f2f132e0e6bc03bb1b33c04fd2e70ce76335022b2053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1vEzEQhlcIJKq2J_7ASlyQUFJ_7mYvSFFUaFERiBLBzRp7x9FUm3WxnUP-PQ5bkRbVPnhm_MyH_VbVG87misv2YvXl59X8ljOl1IvqhPO2m-lG_Hr5yH5dnad0x8pqVcf14qSCpXO7CG5fw9jX33EgsDRQ3tfB1-uMkUasV2HMhckUxvq6xzGTJwd_3XWicVMvbR-2NMJQ3-6iB4f15YAux9BjOqteeRgSnj-cp9X64-WP1dXs5uun69XyZgaqE3nGOyY6xEVn21ZLDRwWduGF51Igw8Y6Jq3lVkrHlO8Ftsxh20ipmRBWMC1Pq7dT3fsYfu8wZXMXdrHMlAwXSvKm7bg6UhsY0NDow-FlW0rOLKViutUFLdT8GarsHrfkwoieSvxJwvspwcWQUkRv7iNtIe4NZ-agjjmoYyZ1Cv1uohNs8NGYz6IfJnQgizFDehgC_jUIQOa_SwfGha2RSh2-5fNUAChSpmO3b4LxhjVcMyZNsQUX5hhS3VOn0abI8gfTD7iC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1243167914</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hayes-Gill, Barrie ; Hassan, Sarmina ; Mirza, Fadi G. ; Ommani, Sophia ; Himsworth, John ; Solomon, Molham ; Brown, Raymond ; Schifrin, Barry S. ; Cohen, Wayne R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hayes-Gill, Barrie ; Hassan, Sarmina ; Mirza, Fadi G. ; Ommani, Sophia ; Himsworth, John ; Solomon, Molham ; Brown, Raymond ; Schifrin, Barry S. ; Cohen, Wayne R.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To compare the accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification from maternal abdominal electrohysterogram and tocodynamometer with an intrauterine pressure transducer. Methods Seventy-four term parturients had uterine contractions monitored simultaneously with electrohysterography, tocodynamometry, and intrauterine pressure measurement. Results Electrohysterography was more reliable than tocodynamometry when compared to the intrauterine method (97.1 versus 60.9 positive percent agreement; P &lt; 0.001). The root mean square error was lower for electrohysterography than tocodynamometry in the first stage (0.88 versus 1.22 contractions/10 minutes; P &lt; 0.001), and equivalent to tocodynamometry in the second. The positive predictive values for tocodynamometry and electrohysterography (84.1% versus 78.7%) were not significantly different, nor were the false positive rates (21.3% versus 15.9%; P = 0.052). The sensitivity of electrohysterography was superior to that of tocodynamometry (86.0 versus 73.6%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The electrohysterographic technique was more reliable and similar in accuracy to tocodynamometry in detecting intrapartum uterine contractions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1179-562X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-562X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4137/CMWH.S10444</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: Libertas Academica</publisher><ispartof>Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health, 2012-01, Vol.2012 (2012), p.65-75</ispartof><rights>2012 SAGE Publications.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)</rights><rights>Copyright Libertas Academica Ltd 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a492t-19029ee89b77535a1a8b8f2f132e0e6bc03bb1b33c04fd2e70ce76335022b2053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a492t-19029ee89b77535a1a8b8f2f132e0e6bc03bb1b33c04fd2e70ce76335022b2053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hayes-Gill, Barrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Sarmina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirza, Fadi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ommani, Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Himsworth, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Molham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schifrin, Barry S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Wayne R.</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes</title><title>Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health</title><description>Objective To compare the accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification from maternal abdominal electrohysterogram and tocodynamometer with an intrauterine pressure transducer. Methods Seventy-four term parturients had uterine contractions monitored simultaneously with electrohysterography, tocodynamometry, and intrauterine pressure measurement. Results Electrohysterography was more reliable than tocodynamometry when compared to the intrauterine method (97.1 versus 60.9 positive percent agreement; P &lt; 0.001). The root mean square error was lower for electrohysterography than tocodynamometry in the first stage (0.88 versus 1.22 contractions/10 minutes; P &lt; 0.001), and equivalent to tocodynamometry in the second. The positive predictive values for tocodynamometry and electrohysterography (84.1% versus 78.7%) were not significantly different, nor were the false positive rates (21.3% versus 15.9%; P = 0.052). The sensitivity of electrohysterography was superior to that of tocodynamometry (86.0 versus 73.6%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The electrohysterographic technique was more reliable and similar in accuracy to tocodynamometry in detecting intrapartum uterine contractions.</description><issn>1179-562X</issn><issn>1179-562X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNptkU1vEzEQhlcIJKq2J_7ASlyQUFJ_7mYvSFFUaFERiBLBzRp7x9FUm3WxnUP-PQ5bkRbVPnhm_MyH_VbVG87misv2YvXl59X8ljOl1IvqhPO2m-lG_Hr5yH5dnad0x8pqVcf14qSCpXO7CG5fw9jX33EgsDRQ3tfB1-uMkUasV2HMhckUxvq6xzGTJwd_3XWicVMvbR-2NMJQ3-6iB4f15YAux9BjOqteeRgSnj-cp9X64-WP1dXs5uun69XyZgaqE3nGOyY6xEVn21ZLDRwWduGF51Igw8Y6Jq3lVkrHlO8Ftsxh20ipmRBWMC1Pq7dT3fsYfu8wZXMXdrHMlAwXSvKm7bg6UhsY0NDow-FlW0rOLKViutUFLdT8GarsHrfkwoieSvxJwvspwcWQUkRv7iNtIe4NZ-agjjmoYyZ1Cv1uohNs8NGYz6IfJnQgizFDehgC_jUIQOa_SwfGha2RSh2-5fNUAChSpmO3b4LxhjVcMyZNsQUX5hhS3VOn0abI8gfTD7iC</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>Hayes-Gill, Barrie</creator><creator>Hassan, Sarmina</creator><creator>Mirza, Fadi G.</creator><creator>Ommani, Sophia</creator><creator>Himsworth, John</creator><creator>Solomon, Molham</creator><creator>Brown, Raymond</creator><creator>Schifrin, Barry S.</creator><creator>Cohen, Wayne R.</creator><general>Libertas Academica</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>188</scope><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AYAGU</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes</title><author>Hayes-Gill, Barrie ; Hassan, Sarmina ; Mirza, Fadi G. ; Ommani, Sophia ; Himsworth, John ; Solomon, Molham ; Brown, Raymond ; Schifrin, Barry S. ; Cohen, Wayne R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a492t-19029ee89b77535a1a8b8f2f132e0e6bc03bb1b33c04fd2e70ce76335022b2053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hayes-Gill, Barrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Sarmina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirza, Fadi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ommani, Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Himsworth, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Molham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Raymond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schifrin, Barry S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Wayne R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Airiti Library</collection><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Australia &amp; New Zealand Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hayes-Gill, Barrie</au><au>Hassan, Sarmina</au><au>Mirza, Fadi G.</au><au>Ommani, Sophia</au><au>Himsworth, John</au><au>Solomon, Molham</au><au>Brown, Raymond</au><au>Schifrin, Barry S.</au><au>Cohen, Wayne R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes</atitle><jtitle>Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health</jtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>2012</volume><issue>2012</issue><spage>65</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>65-75</pages><issn>1179-562X</issn><eissn>1179-562X</eissn><abstract>Objective To compare the accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification from maternal abdominal electrohysterogram and tocodynamometer with an intrauterine pressure transducer. Methods Seventy-four term parturients had uterine contractions monitored simultaneously with electrohysterography, tocodynamometry, and intrauterine pressure measurement. Results Electrohysterography was more reliable than tocodynamometry when compared to the intrauterine method (97.1 versus 60.9 positive percent agreement; P &lt; 0.001). The root mean square error was lower for electrohysterography than tocodynamometry in the first stage (0.88 versus 1.22 contractions/10 minutes; P &lt; 0.001), and equivalent to tocodynamometry in the second. The positive predictive values for tocodynamometry and electrohysterography (84.1% versus 78.7%) were not significantly different, nor were the false positive rates (21.3% versus 15.9%; P = 0.052). The sensitivity of electrohysterography was superior to that of tocodynamometry (86.0 versus 73.6%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The electrohysterographic technique was more reliable and similar in accuracy to tocodynamometry in detecting intrapartum uterine contractions.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>Libertas Academica</pub><doi>10.4137/CMWH.S10444</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1179-562X
ispartof Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health, 2012-01, Vol.2012 (2012), p.65-75
issn 1179-562X
1179-562X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1243167914
source PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
title Accuracy and Reliability of Uterine Contraction Identification Using Abdominal Surface Electrodes
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T17%3A45%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20and%20Reliability%20of%20Uterine%20Contraction%20Identification%20Using%20Abdominal%20Surface%20Electrodes&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20Medicine%20Insights:%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Health&rft.au=Hayes-Gill,%20Barrie&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=2012&rft.spage=65&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=65-75&rft.issn=1179-562X&rft.eissn=1179-562X&rft_id=info:doi/10.4137/CMWH.S10444&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA340575431%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1243167914&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A340575431&rft_airiti_id=P20160615003_201212_201606150049_201606150049_65_75&rft_sage_id=10.4137_CMWH.S10444&rfr_iscdi=true