Training in the use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Kelly, Sarah; Redmond, Patrick; King, Sarah; Oliver‐Williams, Clare; Lamé, Guillaume; Liberati, Elisa Giulia; Kuhn, Isla; Winter, Cathy; Dixon‐Woods, Mary; Burt, Jenni

doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16619

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review exploring training for healthcare professionals in intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring with cardiotocography [18]. Cardiotocography is widely used in high-risk labours to detect heart rate abnormalities which may indicate fetal distress, in order to intervene or expedite birth as required.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study

Noel-Storr

Redmond

Lamé

et al. 2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Crowdsourcing engages the help of large numbers of people in tasks, activities or projects, usually via the internet. One application of crowdsourcing is the screening of citations for inclusion in a systematic review. There is evidence that a ‘Crowd’ of non-specialists can reliably identify quantitative studies, such as randomized controlled trials, through the assessment of study titles and abstracts. In this feasibility study, we investigated crowd performance of an online, topic-based citation-screening task, assessing titles and abstracts for inclusion in a single mixed-studies systematic review. Methods This study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review of maternity care, exploring the effects of training healthcare professionals in intrapartum cardiotocography. Citation-screening was undertaken via Cochrane Crowd, an online citizen science platform enabling volunteers to contribute to a range of tasks identifying evidence in health and healthcare. Contributors were recruited from users registered with Cochrane Crowd. Following completion of task-specific online training, the crowd and the review team independently screened 9546 titles and abstracts. The screening task was subsequently repeated with a new crowd following minor changes to the crowd agreement algorithm based on findings from the first screening task. We assessed the crowd decisions against the review team categorizations (the ‘gold standard’), measuring sensitivity, specificity, time and task engagement. Results Seventy-eight crowd contributors completed the first screening task. Sensitivity (the crowd’s ability to correctly identify studies included within the review) was 84% (N = 42/50), and specificity (the crowd’s ability to correctly identify excluded studies) was 99% (N = 9373/9493). Task completion was 33 h for the crowd and 410 h for the review team; mean time to classify each record was 6.06 s for each crowd participant and 3.96 s for review team members. Replicating this task with 85 new contributors and an altered agreement algorithm found 94% sensitivity (N = 48/50) and 98% specificity (N = 9348/9493). Contributors reported positive experiences of the task. Conclusion It might be feasible to recruit and train a crowd to accurately perform topic-based citation-screening for mixed studies systematic reviews, though resource expended on the necessary customised training required should be factored in. In the face of long review production times, crowd screening may enable a more time-efficient conduct of reviews, with minimal reduction of citation-screening accuracy, but further research is needed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Citations for screening were generated through searches conducted according to the review protocol [18] (Appendix 1). The initial search identified a total of 10,223 records; after the removal of duplicates, 9546 records remained for screening.…”

Section: Citation Screening Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study

Noel-Storr

Redmond

Lamé

et al. 2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This narrow focus on fetal monitoring results in cognitive biases that influence recommendations to improve care. As an example, more training in interpreting fetal monitoring is commonly recommended after an unexpected death occurs, despite little evidence of effectiveness 12. Local reviews often call for actions targeted only at individuals, or relatively weak systems changes 13…”

Section: Bias Against Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving safer maternity care in the UK

Knight

Bevan²

2021

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We congratulate Kelly et al. on their review on the effects of training in cardiotocography (CTG) 1 . It is a critical step towards understanding how correctly to implement CTG training.…”

Section: Disclosure Of Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re: Training in the use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cardiotocography training is a complex intervention and requires complex evaluations

Lightly

Weeks

Scott

2021

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training in the use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography: systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 96 publications

Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study

Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study

Achieving safer maternity care in the UK

Re: Training in the use of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cardiotocography training is a complex intervention and requires complex evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About