Measurement of Fetal Heart Rate Variability on an Electronic Monitor Using a Prototype Electronic Ruler

Lianna M. Hall; Daniel J. Hannon; Gary G. Leisk; Adam J. Wolfberg; Michael D. House

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1304820

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2012; 29(06): 409-414
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1304820

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Measurement of Fetal Heart Rate Variability on an Electronic Monitor Using a Prototype Electronic Ruler

Lianna M. Hall

¹Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

,

Daniel J. Hannon

¹Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

,

Gary G. Leisk

¹Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

,

Adam J. Wolfberg

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Michael D. House

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective To develop a prototype electronic ruler for assessment of fetal heart rate (FHR) variability on an electronic monitor and test its reliability and accuracy.

Study Design A prototype electronic ruler was designed and developed for assessment of FHR variability on electronic monitors. The electronic ruler consisted of horizontal bands that were sized and colored to embed the four FHR variability categories. The reliability and accuracy of using the electronic ruler to assess FHR variability was studied with expert clinicians.

Results Intrarater and interrater reliability was moderate for both the electronic ruler and paper strips. The amplitude measurement accuracy of expert variability assessment compared with a gold standard was significantly improved (p < 0.001) with the electronic ruler versus paper strips. The accuracy of subjects’ FHR variability category responses compared with the gold standard revealed no significant difference (p = 0.50) using either display type.

Conclusion Performance of the electronic ruler was equivalent to paper strips, which may aid assessment of variability on electronic monitors as paper strips become less prevalent.

Keywords

electronic fetal monitoring - electronic medical records - fetal heart rate interpretation - fetal heart rate variability - human factors engineering

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD , et al. Births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57 (7) 1-104
2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 192-202
3 Wolfberg AJ, Derosier DJ, Roberts T , et al. A comparison of subjective and mathematical estimations of fetal heart rate variability. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2008; 21: 101-104
4 Chauhan SP, Klauser CK, Woodring TC, Sanderson M, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 623 , e1–e5
5 Devane D, Lalor J. Midwives’ visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement. J Adv Nurs 2005; 52: 133-141
6 Lotgering FK, Wallenburg HCS, Schouten HJA. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of antepartum cardiotocograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 701-705
7 Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Ayres-de-Campos D, van Geijn HP, Pereira-Leite L. Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997; 57: 33-37
8 Donker DK, van Geijn HP, Hasman A. Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 52: 21-28
9 Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 661-666
10 U. S. Committee on Ways and Means. Title IV—Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. Available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/hit2.pdf . Accessed November 2, 2009
11 Muthard EK. The Contaminating Influence of Display Size on Flight Control, Risk Assessment, and Route Selection. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, September 26 to 30, 2005, Orlando, FL: 73–77
12 Hall L. Prototype electronic displays for improved visual interpretation of fetal heart rate variability [master's thesis]. Medford, MA: Tufts University; 2010
13 Wickens CD, Hollands JG. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000
14 Tulving E, Schacter DL, Stark HA. Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1982; 8: 336-342
15 Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213-220
16 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
17 Shoukri MM, Asyali MH, Donner A. Sample size requirements for the design of reliability study: review and new results. Stat Methods Med Res 2004; 13: 251-271