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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical Medicine Insights: Women’s Health 2012-01, Vol.2012 (2012), p.65-75 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 < 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.</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 < 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.</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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 < 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.</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 |